Essay: Good Enough Is Enough
The desire for greatness often eclipses the importance of a good-enough life
Avram Alpert teaches writing at Princeton and is the author of the forthcoming Global Origins of the Modern Self. He is working on a screenplay about the life of the activist and writer Saul Alinsky.
Ideals of greatness cut across the American political spectrum. Supporters of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and believers in Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again,” for instance, may find themselves at odds, but their differences lie in the vision of what constitutes greatness, not whether greatness itself is a worthy goal. In both cases — and in most any iteration of America’s idea of itself — it is.
The desire for greatness also unites the diverse philosophical camps of Western ethics. Aristotle called for practicing the highest virtue. Kant believed in an ethical rule so stringent not even he thought it was achievable by mortals. Bentham’s utilitarianism is about maximizing happiness. Marx sought the great world for all. Modern-day libertarians will stop at nothing to increase personal freedom and profit. These differences surely matter, but while the definition of greatness changes, greatness itself is sought by each in his own way.
Swimming against the tide of greatness is a counter-history of ethics embodied by schools of thought as diverse as Buddhism, Romanticism, and psychoanalysis. It is by borrowing from D.W. Winnicott, an important figure in the development of psychoanalysis, that we get perhaps the best name for this other ethics: “the good-enough life.” In his book Playing and Reality, Winnicott wrote about what he called “the good-enough mother.” This mother is good enough not in the sense that she is adequate or average, but that she manages a difficult task: initiating the infant into a world in which he or she will feel both cared for and ready to deal with life’s endless frustrations. To fully become good enough is to grow up into
a world that is itself good enough, that is as full of care and love as it is suffering and frustration.
From Buddhism and Romanticism we can get a fuller picture of what such a good-enough world could be like. Buddhism offers a criticism of the caste system and the idea that some people have to live lives of servitude in order to ensure the greatness of others. It posits instead the idea of the “middle path,” a life that is neither excessively materialistic nor too ascetic. And some Buddhist thinkers, such as the sixth-century Persian-Chinese monk Jizang, even insist that this middle life, this good-enough life, is the birthright of not only all humans, but also all of nature as well. In this radical vision of the good-enough life, our task is not to make the perfect human society, but rather a good-enough world in which each of us has sufficient (but never too many) resources to handle our encounters with the inevitable sufferings of a world full of chance and complexity.
The Romantic poets and philosophers extend this vision of good-enoughness to embrace what they would call “the ordinary” or “the everyday.” This does not refer to the everyday annoyances or anxieties we experience, but the fact that within what is most ordinary, most basic, and most familiar, we might find a delight unimaginable if we find meaning only in greatness. The antiheroic sentiment is well expressed by George Eliot at the end of her novel Middlemarch: “that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” And its legacy is attested to in the poem “Famous” by Naomi Shihab Nye: “I want to be famous to shuffling men / who smile while crossing streets, / sticky children in grocery lines, / famous as the one who smiled back.”
Being good enough is not easy. It takes a tremendous amount of work to smile purely while waiting, exhausted, in a grocery line. Or to be good enough to loved ones to both support them and allow them to experience frustration. And it remains to be seen if we as a society can establish a good-enough relation to one another, where individuals and nations do not strive for their unique greatness, but rather work together to create the conditions of decency necessary for all.
Achieving this will also require us to develop a good-enough relation to our natural world, one in which we recognize both the abundance and the limitations of the planet we share with infinite other life forms, each seeking its own path toward good-enoughness. If we do manage any of these things, it will not be because we have achieved greatness, but because we have recognized that none of them are achievable until greatness itself is forgotten.
“The Good-Enough Life” by Avram Alpert originally appeared in The New York Times Feb. 20, 2019. Reprinted with permission.
Related News
Elena Kagan ’81 and David Card *83 to Receive Top Honors
J. Kēhaulani Kauanui Shines a Spotlight on Indigenous Experiences
Neuroscience Researcher Uses Award to Study Responses to Stress
As a 2024 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, Ilana Witten ’02 plans to further her lab’s research in brain systems and circuits
2 Responses
Graham Good *70
5 Years AgoRespect for What’s Great
Avram Alpert’s essay (Life of the Mind, April 24) suggests that valuing greatness is incompatible with valuing ordinary “good-enough” living. (Note, however, that D.W. Winnicott’s phrase about being “good enough” referred to parenting, not to life in general.) But respect for the qualities needed for ordinary life does not preclude respect for outstanding achievement. Greatness in any field should not be denigrated simply because most people do not reach it.
In trying to put together a countertradition to Western emphasis on greatness, Alpert chooses poor examples. The Romantic period was the heyday of the “great man” approach to history (see Carlyle, for one). Buddhism, too, includes reverence for “great teachers,” starting with Buddha himself.
Should Princeton stop striving to be a great university and settle for being “good enough”? Alpert teaches writing, but does he believe in “great literature”? If not, how does he decide what books to teach? Or is all writing “good enough”?
A compassionate society need not reject greatness. Nor does President Trump’s use of “greatness” mean that his opponents should drop the idea. Perhaps the attitude expressed in this essay could be called “magnaphobia” — fear of greatness.
Norman Ravitch *62
5 Years AgoAccepting Our Modest Roles
We are on this planet through no merit or fault of our own. We can suffer the arrows of misfortune or we can try to avoid them. We never can really avoid them entirely, but we can make ourselves relatively more or less vulnerable.
All the talk of gods and spirits is nonsense, of course. We have only one another, and that cannot always be the comfort we hope for. So let us accept the troubles that come, try to learn how to avoid them when they are avoidable, which often they are not, and above all stop preaching to others (which really means to ourselves, whistling when passing the graveyard). If we come to understand that no one gives a damn about us cosmically, perhaps we can accept the modest roles we have. The Buddhists perhaps have the best theoretical answer here, but the actions of Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Burma in recent days and years make it certain they are no better in practice than Muslims, Christians or Jews. Westerners look eastward for wisdom where it does not exist. As we become more ethnically diverse, we can see that Asians, Africans, and non-Europeans are really not any better in their ideas than we and certain no better in their actions. They may even be worse.