Legacy
Ambitious people want to leave legacies, but what sort of legacies do they want to leave? The traditional criterion is that your importance is measured by the effect of what you do. Thus the most important lawyers are the Supreme Court justices, since their decisions affect the entire nation. And the greatest mathematicians are those that make important discoveries, since their discoveries end up being used by many who follow.
This seems quite reasonable. One’s legacy depends on one’s impact and what better way to measure impact than by the effect of what you’ve done. But this is measuring against the wrong baseline. The real question is not what effect your work had, but what things would be like had you never done it.
The two are not at all the same. It is rather commonly accepted that there are “ideas whose time has come” and history tends to bear this out. When Newton invented the calculus, so did Leibniz. When Darwin discovered evolution through natural selection, so did Alfred Russel Wallace. When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, so did Elisha Gray (before him, arguably).
In these cases the facts are plain: had Newton, Darwin, and Bell never done their work, the result would have been largely the same — we’d still have calculus, evolution, and the telephone. And yet such people are hailed as major heroes, their legacies immortalized.
Perhaps, if one only cares about such things, this is enough. (Although this seems a rather dangerous game, since the future could wake up at any moment and realize its adulation is misplaced.) But if one genuinely cares about their impact, instead of simply how their impact is perceived, more careful thought is in order.
I once spent time with a well-known academic, who had published several works widely recognized as classics even outside his field, and he offered some career advice in the sciences. (Actually, come to think of it, there are two people of whom this is true, suggesting the phenomenon has broader significance.) Such-and-such a field is very hot right now, he said, you could really make a name for yourself by getting into it. The idea being that major discoveries were sure to follow soon and that if I picked that field I could be the one to make them.
By my test, such a thing would leave a poor legacy. (For what it’s worth, I don’t think either person’s works fall into this category; that is to say, their reputation is still deserved even by these standards.) Even worse, you’d know it. Presumably Darwin and Newton didn’t begin their investigations because they thought the field was “hot”. They thought through doing it they would have a significant impact, even though that turned out to be wrong. But someone who joined a field simply because they thought a major discovery would come from it soon could never enjoy such a delusion. Instead, they would know that their work would make little difference, and would have to labor under such impressions.
The same is true of other professions we misconceive of as being important. Take being a Supreme Court justice, for example. Traditionally, this is thought of as a majestic job in which one gets to make decisions of great import. In fact, it seems to me that one has little impact at all. Most of your impact was made by the politics of the President who appointed you. Had you not been around for the job, he would have found someone else who would take similar positions. The only way one could have a real impact as Supreme Court justice would be to change your politics once appointed to the bench and the only way you could prepare for such a thing would be to spend the majority of your career doing things you thought were wrong in the hopes that one day you might get picked for the Supreme Court. That seems a rather hard lot to swallow.
So what jobs do leave a real legacy? It’s hard to think of most of them, since by their very nature they require doing things that other people aren’t trying to do, and thus include the things that people haven’t thought of. But one good source of them is trying to do things that change the system instead of following it. For example, the university system encourages people to become professors who do research in certain areas (and thus many people do this); it discourages people from trying to change the nature of the university itself.
Naturally, doing things like changing the university are much harder than simply becoming yet another professor. But for those who genuinely care about their legacies, it doesn’t seem like there’s much choice.
You should follow me on twitter here.
June 1, 2006
In other words, the good legacies are the improbable ones.
posted by Rob Mayoff
on June 1, 2006 #
“Although this seems a rather dangerous game, since the future could wake up at any moment and realize its adulation is misplaced.”
Really? Has that ever happened? It seems to me we should do what most needs doing because it most needs doing, not with some expectation that doing it will improve our standing in history. Because most likely it won’t.
posted by Scott Reynen
on June 1, 2006 #
It seems to me there’s a contradiction in what you write above. You’re discussing the Great Man vs. Historic Inevitability theories. However, if this applies to scientific innovation, then it also should apply to social change. You seem to be saying Great Man doesn’t apply to science, that science is Historic Inevitability, but Great Man does apply to social change (“trying to do things that change the system instead of following it”).
But why isn’t social change also under Historic Inevitability? Indeed, I’d say the case for that is better than for science. However, it makes no sense to blithely assert it’s true for one and not the other.
For example, Rosa Parks is a situation which is usually told as a Great Woman story, but (meaning no disrespect), it was very much that changing the system then had enormous pressure behind it and there was a search for a good plaintiff.
Sometimes people are just in the right place at the right time, this is widely true.
posted by Seth Finkelstein
on June 1, 2006 #
The main argument of the piece is not that the Great Man or Historic Inevitability arguments are right, but that the right way to measure a legacy is by the diff with what would have happened otherwise.
If you accept this premise, then we can discuss what the diff would be. I argue that in many fields of science and technology, the diff would be very small in many cases. And, as evidence, I cite the frequent simultaneous discovery and invention of major things. (Even though some discoverers or inventors receive substantial applause.)
And you’re right that the Rosa Parks story is a similar myth. Far from acting alone, Rosa Parks was a member of a well-organized group that was looking for a test case to fight the bus system. Rosa was that test case, but others could have been as well.
I didn’t mean to suggest that lone acts of heroism are the way to make a legacy. Instead, what I was trying to say was that if you had to choose between something like making a major scientific discovery and making a major contribution to a social change movement, you should pick the latter, because fewer people will do that and thus it will make the largest diff with what would otherwise happen.
posted by Aaron Swartz
on June 1, 2006 #
Aaron, I understand that’s your argument. I’m saying it’s not clear how it can be true. This phrase has the flaw:
“because fewer people will do that and thus it will make the largest diff with what would otherwise happen”
How can you derive that? To me, the processes seem very similar. In terms of Historic Inevitability theory, a major contribution to a social change movement happens when the world is ready for it, in the same way a major scientific discovery happens when the groundwork is done beforehand. And there’s the same sort of politics in that practioners of that field wonder what are the “hot” areas where major contributions are low-hanging fruit.
If one is going to be making the contribution on the basis of talent, that’s not something you can control - they’re different skills, and for a major contribution, I’d say you basically either have it or you don’t. If one is going to be making the contribution on the basis of hard work, there’s no way to claim it makes more of difference, in the sense that anyone can work hard at their chosen field.
posted by Seth Finkelstein
on June 1, 2006 #
There are plenty of people out there who want to make a social change through different means, be it Supreme Court justices, politicians, religious leaders, non-profit workers, social commentator or even scientist. I think its more important to do something you enjoy than worrying about leaving a legacy. I agree with Seith, sometimes people are just in the right place at the right time.
posted by Mike
on June 1, 2006 #
There are plenty of people out there who want to make a social change through different means, be it Supreme Court justices, politicians, religious leaders, non-profit workers, social commentator or even scientist. I think its more important to do something you enjoy than worrying about leaving a legacy. I agree with Seth, sometimes people are just in the right place at the right time.
posted by Mike
on June 1, 2006 #
You can also send comments by email.
Comments
In other words, the good legacies are the improbable ones.
posted by Rob Mayoff on June 1, 2006 #
“Although this seems a rather dangerous game, since the future could wake up at any moment and realize its adulation is misplaced.”
Really? Has that ever happened? It seems to me we should do what most needs doing because it most needs doing, not with some expectation that doing it will improve our standing in history. Because most likely it won’t.
posted by Scott Reynen on June 1, 2006 #
It seems to me there’s a contradiction in what you write above. You’re discussing the Great Man vs. Historic Inevitability theories. However, if this applies to scientific innovation, then it also should apply to social change. You seem to be saying Great Man doesn’t apply to science, that science is Historic Inevitability, but Great Man does apply to social change (“trying to do things that change the system instead of following it”).
But why isn’t social change also under Historic Inevitability? Indeed, I’d say the case for that is better than for science. However, it makes no sense to blithely assert it’s true for one and not the other.
For example, Rosa Parks is a situation which is usually told as a Great Woman story, but (meaning no disrespect), it was very much that changing the system then had enormous pressure behind it and there was a search for a good plaintiff.
Sometimes people are just in the right place at the right time, this is widely true.
posted by Seth Finkelstein on June 1, 2006 #
The main argument of the piece is not that the Great Man or Historic Inevitability arguments are right, but that the right way to measure a legacy is by the diff with what would have happened otherwise.
If you accept this premise, then we can discuss what the diff would be. I argue that in many fields of science and technology, the diff would be very small in many cases. And, as evidence, I cite the frequent simultaneous discovery and invention of major things. (Even though some discoverers or inventors receive substantial applause.)
And you’re right that the Rosa Parks story is a similar myth. Far from acting alone, Rosa Parks was a member of a well-organized group that was looking for a test case to fight the bus system. Rosa was that test case, but others could have been as well.
I didn’t mean to suggest that lone acts of heroism are the way to make a legacy. Instead, what I was trying to say was that if you had to choose between something like making a major scientific discovery and making a major contribution to a social change movement, you should pick the latter, because fewer people will do that and thus it will make the largest diff with what would otherwise happen.
posted by Aaron Swartz on June 1, 2006 #
Aaron, I understand that’s your argument. I’m saying it’s not clear how it can be true. This phrase has the flaw:
“because fewer people will do that and thus it will make the largest diff with what would otherwise happen”
How can you derive that? To me, the processes seem very similar. In terms of Historic Inevitability theory, a major contribution to a social change movement happens when the world is ready for it, in the same way a major scientific discovery happens when the groundwork is done beforehand. And there’s the same sort of politics in that practioners of that field wonder what are the “hot” areas where major contributions are low-hanging fruit.
If one is going to be making the contribution on the basis of talent, that’s not something you can control - they’re different skills, and for a major contribution, I’d say you basically either have it or you don’t. If one is going to be making the contribution on the basis of hard work, there’s no way to claim it makes more of difference, in the sense that anyone can work hard at their chosen field.
posted by Seth Finkelstein on June 1, 2006 #
There are plenty of people out there who want to make a social change through different means, be it Supreme Court justices, politicians, religious leaders, non-profit workers, social commentator or even scientist. I think its more important to do something you enjoy than worrying about leaving a legacy. I agree with Seith, sometimes people are just in the right place at the right time.
posted by Mike on June 1, 2006 #
There are plenty of people out there who want to make a social change through different means, be it Supreme Court justices, politicians, religious leaders, non-profit workers, social commentator or even scientist. I think its more important to do something you enjoy than worrying about leaving a legacy. I agree with Seth, sometimes people are just in the right place at the right time.
posted by Mike on June 1, 2006 #
You can also send comments by email.