THE MUNDANITY OF EXCELLENCE: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC REPORT ON STRATIFICATION AND OLYMPIC SWIMMERS

DANIEL F. CHAMBLISS Hamilton College*

Olympic sports,and competitive swimming swimmers from another town; one swimmer in particular, provide an unusually clear may consistently qualify for the Junior opportunity for studying the nature of Nationals, but not for Seniors; a third may excellence. In other fields, it may be less swim at the Olympics, and never return to clear who are the outstanding performers: Junior Nationals. The levels of the sport the best painter or pianist, the best business- are remarkably distinct from one another. person, the finest waitress or the best This 1s convenient for the student of father. But in sport (and this is one of its stratification. Because success in swimming attractions) success is defined more exactly, is so definable, and the stratification system by success in competition. There are so (relatively) unambiguous (so that the medals and ribbons and plaques for first athlete’s progress can be easily charted), place, second, and third; competitions are we can clearly see, by comparing levels arranged for the head-to-head meeting of and studying individuals as they move the best competitors in the world; in between and within levels, what exactly swimming and track, times are electronically produces excellence. In addition, careers recorded to the hundredth of a second; in swimming are relatively short; one can there are statistics published and rankings achieve tremendous success in a brief announced, every month or every week. period of time. Rowdy Gaines, beginning By the end of the Olympic Games every in the sport when 17 years old, jumped four years, it is completely clear who won from a country club league to a world and who lost, who made the finals, who record in the 100 meter freestyle event in participated in the Games, and who never only three years. This allows the researcher participated in the sport at all. to conduct true longitudinal research in a Within competitive swimming in par- few short years. ticular, clear stratification exists not only In short, in competitive swimming one between individuals but also between de- can rather quickly learn something about fined levels of the sport as well. At the stratification; here is a prime location for lowest level, we see the country club studying the nature of excellence.' teams, operating in the summer-time as a loosely-run, mildly competitive league, with volunteer part-time coaches. Above I. THE RESEARCH that there are teams which represent entire From January 1983 through August 1984 I cities and compete with other teams from attended a series of national and inter- other cities around the state or region; national-class swimming meets conducted then a “Junior Nationals” level of competi- tion, featuring the best younger (under 18 years old) athletes; then the Senior ' The general approach taken here derives from Nationals level (any age, the best in the symbolic interactionism and phenomenology, as nation); and finally, we could speak of practiced by Berger and Luckmann (1966), Blumer (1986), Schutz (1971), and Schutz and Luckmann world or Olympic class competitors. At (1973). each such level, we find, predictably, The sociology of sport literature is thin on certain people competing: one athlete swimming; however, the following are either classics swims in a summer league, never seeing or recent work which was helpful: Elias and Dunning (1986), Fine (1979, 1987), Goffman (1961), Guttmann (1978), Lever (1983), and Rigauer (1981). Perhaps * The author wishes to thank Randall Collins and one of the finest pieces of social critique of sport Gary Alan Fine for their comments on an earlier appears woven throughout David Halberstam’s The draft of this paper. Breaks of the Game (1981). THE MUNDANITY OF EXCELLENCE 7] by United States Swimming, Inc., the lifting sessions, team meetings, parties, national governing body for the sport. and other events. In addition, I was United States Swimming sanctions the present in Mission Viejo during the U.S. selection process for American teams for Olympic Team Training Camp, which was international events (the Olympic Games, held there in July of 1984, and was the only for example), and charters several thousand non-staff member on the pool deck during amateur swimming clubs around the coun- the (closed) afternoon practices of the try with membership of several hundred Olympic Team. In addition, I have recently thousand athletes, by far the majority of completed five years of coaching a regional- whom are children and teenagers. These level age group swimming team (children clubs provide the organizational base for 7-16 years old) in New York State. In that amateur swimming in America. The meets capacity I traveled to many meets, from attended included both the Indoor (March) the smallest “country club” events to the and the Outdoor (August) National Eastern Zone Championships, as well as Championships, the. USS International other large meets east of the Mississippi Meet, the Seventeen Magazine Meet of River. I have also coached in the southern Champions, the Speedo/Dupont Meet of U.S. and worked with beginners as well as Champions, the 1984 Olympic Trials, and National Age Group record holders. the 1984 Summer Olympic Games. I carried In short, this report draws on extended standard press credentials, and was free to experience with swimmers at every level of go anywhere and talk to anyone. At most ability, over some half a dozen years. meets I traveled with the Mission Viejo Observation has covered the span of (CA) Nadadores, National Team Cham- careers, and I have had the chance to pions at the time, sharing plane flights, compare not just athletes within a certain hotel accommodations, meals, and in- level (the view that most coaches have), town transportation with them. I lived but between the most discrepant levels as with the coaches and athletes of this team well. Thus these findings avoid the usual in a traditional participant observer role. It “sociology of knowledge” problem of an was Clear to all involved that I was there as observer’s being familiar mainly with ath- a researcher; no deception was involved at letes at one level. When top-rank coaches, any stage of the research. During this for instance, talk of what makes success, period and several occasions since, [| inter- they are often thinking of the differences viewed a total of some 120 national and between athletes whom they see within the world-class swimmers and coaches.” top level of the sport. Their ignorance of Over these years I frequently spent from the day-to-day realities of lower levels 3 days to a month and a half in Mission (learn-to-swim programs, country club Viejo (about an hour’s drive south of Los teams) prevents them from having a truly Angeles) living with coaches, visiting prac- comparative view. Or when sports journ- tices, and interviewing swimmers, coaches alists write about: Olympic athletes, they and officials. The Nadadores gave me typically begin the research after the great complete access to their practices, weight deed is done, and so lack a legitimate longitudinal view; the athlete’s memory of his or her own distant history will be distorted. This study of Olympic swimmers, by - Interviews were either recorded on tape (in the contrast, (1) looks at different levels of the early stages of the research) or in written notes. Tape sport, and (2) was begun well in advance recording had a somewhat inhibiting effect on when and where interviews could be conducted, and so was of the Games, when no one (obviously) abandoned. Interviews proceeded from a base of a knew who would win and who not; it was few standard questions—e.g. “How did you begin in designed with the explicit idea of seeing swimming?” “When did you first achieve national how the plant grew before the flower standing?” to a more open-ended conversation around issues Of becoming a champion, finding the right bloomed. The research was both cross- coach, etc. For further details, see “Sources and sectional (looking at all levels of the sport) Acknowledgements” in Chambliss, 1988. and longitudinal (over the span of careers). 72 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY THE NATURE OF EXCELLENCE quality; sometimes we talk of a “gift,” or By “excellence” I mean “consistent superi- of “natural ability.” These terms are ority of performance.” The excellent athlete generally used to mystify the essentially mundane processes of achievement in regularly, even routinely, performs better sports, keeping us away from a realistic than his or her competitors. Consistency of superior performances tells us that one analysis of the actual factors creating superlative performances, and protecting athlete is indeed better than another, and us from a sense of responsibility for our that the difference between them is not own outcomes. merely the product of chance. This defi- So where does excellence—consistent nition can apply at any level of the sport, superiority of performance—come from? differentiating athletes. The superiority discussed here may be that of one swimmer over another, or of all athletes at one level I. Excellence Requires Qualitative (say, the Olympic class) over another. By Differentiation this definition, we need not judge per- Excellence in competitive swimming is formance against an absolute criterion, but achieved through qualitative differentiation only against other performances. There are acknowledged leaders on every team, from other swimmers, not through quanti- tative increases in activity. This means, in as well as teams widely recognized as dominant. brief, that levels of the sport are quali- tatively distinct; that stratification is dis- To introduce what are sources of excel- crete, not continuous; and that because of lence for Olympic athletes, I should first these factors, the swimming world is best suggest—saving the demonstration for conceived of not as a single entity but as later—what does not produce excellence. multiple worlds, each with its own patterns (1) Excellence is not, I find, the product of conduct. of socially deviant personalities. These Before elaborating on these points, I swimmers don’t appear to be “oddballs,” should clarify what is meant here by nor are they loners (“kids who have given “quantitative” and “qualitative.” By quan- up the normal teenage life.”)’ If their tity, we mean the number or amount of achievements result from a_ personality something. Quantitative improvement en- characteristic, that characteristic is not tails an increase in the number of some obvious. Perhaps it is true, as the mythology one thing one does. An athlete who of sports has it, that the best athletes are practices 2 hours a day and increases that more self-confident (although that is de- activity to 4 hours a day has made a batable); but such confidence could be an quantitative change in behavior. Or, one effect of achievement, not the cause of it.* who swims 5 miles and changes to 7 miles (2) Excellence does not result from has made a quantitative change. She does quantitative changes in behavior. Increased more of the same thing; there is an training time, per se, does not make one increase in quantity. Or again, a freestyle swim fast; nor does increased “psyching swimmer who, while maintaining the same up”, nor does moving the arms faster. stroke technique, moves his arms at an Simply doing more of the same will not increased number of strokes per minute lead to moving up a level in the sport. has made a quantitative change in behavior. (3) Excellence does not result from Quantitative improvements, then, involve some special inner quality of the athlete. doing more of the same thing. “Talent” is one common name for this By quality, though, we mean the charac- ter or nature of the thing itself. A quali- * In fact, if anything they are more socially bonded tative change involves modifying what is and adept than their peers. The process by which this actually being done, not simply doing happens fits well with Durkheim’s (1965) description more of it. For a swimmer doing the of the sources of social cohesion. breaststroke, a qualitative change might + These issues are addressed at length in “The Social World of Olympic Swimmers,” Daniel F. be a change from pulling straight back with Chambliss, in preparation. the arms to sculling them outwards, to the THE MUNDANITY OF EXCELLENCE 73 sides; or from lifting oneself up out of the Olympic Trials. Consider three dimensions water at the turn to staying low near the of difference: water. Other qualitative changes might include competing in a regional meet, (1) Technique: The styles of strokes, instead of local meets; eating vegetables dives and turns are dramatically different and complex carbohydrates rather than at different levels. A “C” (the lowest rank fats and sugars; entering one’s weaker in United States Swimming’s ranking sys- events instead of only one’s stronger events; tem) breaststroke swimmer tends to pull learning to do a flip turn with freestyle, her arms far back beneath her, kick the instead of merely turning around and legs out very wide without bringing them pushing off; or training at near-competition together at the finish, lift herself high out levels of intensity, rather than casually. of the water on the turn, fail to take a long Each of these involves doing things differ- pull underwater after the turn, and touch ently than before, not necessarily doing at the finish with one hand, on her side. By more. Qualitative improvements involve comparison, a “AAAA” (the highest rank) doing different kinds of things. swimmer, sculls the arms out to the side Now we can consider how qualitative and sweeps back in (never actually pulling differentiation is manifested: backwards), kicks narrowly with the feet finishing together, stays low on the turns, “Different levels of the sport are quali- takes a long underwater pull after the turn, tatively distinct. Olympic champions don’t and touches at the finish with both hands. just do much more of the same things that Not only are the strokes different, they are summer-league country-club swimmers do. so different that the “C” swimmer may be They don’t just swim more hours, or move amazed to see how the “AAAA” swimmer their arms faster, or attend more workouts. looks when swimming. The appearance What makes them faster cannot be quan- alone is dramatically: different, as is the titatively compared with lower level speed with which they swim. swimmers, because while there may be The same is true for all the other strokes quantitative differences—and certainly (to a greater or lesser degree), and certainly there are, for instance in the number of for starts (dives) and turns. Olympic-class hours spent in workouts—these are not, I swimmers, to make one other observation, think, the decisive factors at all.> are surprisingly quiet when they dive into Instead, they do things differently. Their the water—there is little splash. Needless strokes are different, their attitudes are to say, this is not true for a novice 10-year different, their group of friends are differ- old. ent; their parents treat the sport differently, (2) Discipline: The best swimmers are the swimmers prepare differently for their more likely to be strict with their training, races, and they enter different kinds of coming to workouts on time, carefully meets and events. There are numerous doing the competitive strokes legally (i.e., discontinuities of this sort between, say, without violating the technical rules of the the swimmer who competes in a local City sport)°, watch what they eat, sleep regular League meet and one who enters the hours, do proper warmups before a meet, and the like. Their energy is carefully

* True, the top teams work long hours, and swim very long distances, but (1) such workouts often ° One day at Mission Viejo, with some sixty begin after a swimmer achieves national status, not swimmers going back and forth the length of a 50- before, and (2) the positive impact of increased meter pool, coach Mark Schubert took one boy out yardage seems to come with huge increases, e.g. the of the water and had him do twenty pushups before doubling of workout distances—in which case one continuing the workout. The boy had touched the could argue that a qualitative jump has been made. wall with one hand at the end of a breast stroke swim. The whole question of “how much yardage to swim” The rules require a two-handed touch. is widely discussed within the sport itself. One hundred and twenty hands should have Compare the (specious, I think) notion that a touched, one hundred and nineteen did touch, and longer school day/term/year will produce educational this made Schubert angry. He pays attention to improvements. details. 74 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY channeled. Diver Greg Louganis, who .44 seconds, a gap of only “wo of 1%. won two Olympic gold medals in 1984, Between Gaines and the 8th place finisher practices only three hours each day—not a (a virtual unknown named Dirk Korthals, long time—divided up into two or three from West Germany), there was only a sessions. But during each session, he tries 2.2% difference in time. Indeed, between to do every dive perfectly. Louganis 1s Rowdy Gaines, the fastest swimmer in the never sloppy in practice, and so is never world that year, and a respectable 10-year sloppy in meets. old, the quantitative difference in speed (3) Attitude: At the higher levels of would only be about 30%. competitive swimming, something like an Yet here, as in many cases, a rather inversion of attitude takes place. The very small quantitative difference produces an features of the sport which the “C” swimmer enormous qualitative difference: Gaines finds unpleasant, the top-level swimmer was consistently a winner in major inter- enjoys. What others see as boring— national meets, holder of the world record, swimming back and forth over a black line and the Olympic Gold Medalist in three for two hours, say—they find peaceful, events. even meditative’, often challenging, or therapeutic. They enjoy hard practices, look forward to difficult competitions, try * Stratification in the sport is discrete, not to set difficult goals. Coming into the 5.30 continuous. There are significant, quali- AM practices at Mission Viejo, many of tative breaks—discontinuities—between the swimmers were lively, laughing, talking, levels of the sport. These include differ- enjoying themselves, perhaps appreciating ences in attitude, discipline, and technique the fact that most people would positively which in turn lead to small but consistent hate doing it. It is incorrect to believe that quantitative differences in speed. Entire teams show such differences in attitude, top athletes suffer great sacrifices to achieve their goals. Often, they don’t see what discipline, and technique, and consequently they do as sacrificial at all. They like it. certain teams are easily seen to be “stuck” (See also, Hemery 1986). at certain levels.” Some teams always do well at the National Championships, others These qualitative differences are what do well at the. Regionals, others at the distinguish levels of the sport. They are County Meet. And certainly swimmers very noticeable, while the quantitative typically remain within a certain level for differences between levels, both in training most of their careers, maintaining through- and in competition, may be surprisingly out their careers the habits with which they began. Within levels, competitive improve- small indeed. David Hemery, who won a Gold Medal in the 400-meter intermediate ments for such swimmers are typically hurdles at the 1968 Olympics, reports the marginal, reflecting only differential growth rates (early onset of puberty, for instance) results of interviewing world-class athletes or the jockeying for position within the in 22 different sports. “In many cases, the relatively limited sphere of their own level. time spent training [a quantitative factor, I am suggesting here that athletes do not in our terms] did not alter significantly from the start of specialization right up to reach the top level by a simple process of the top level.” Yet very small quantitative differences in performance may be coupled with huge qualitative differences: In the ° For example: several well-known teams con- sistently do well at the National Junior Olympics finals of the men’s 100-meter freestyle (“Junior Nationals,” as it is called informally), and swimming event at the 1984 Olympics, yet never place high in the team standings at the Rowdy Gaines, the gold medalist, finished National Championships (“Senior Nationals”), the ahead of second-place Mark Stockwell by next higher meet. These teams actually prevent their swimmers from going to the better meet, holding them in store 7 From an interview with his coach, Ron O’Brien. for the easier meet so that the team will do better at * Distance swimmers frequently compare swimming that lesser event. In this way, and in many others, to meditation. teams choose their own level of success. THE MUNDANITY OF EXCELLENCE 719 “working their way up,” by accumulating read and talked about. No sheer number sheer time in the sport; improvements of papers given at local conferences or across levels of the sport are not generated published in minor journals “add up to” a through quantitative changes. No amount single Sorokin-award winning book (in of extra work per se will transform a “C” sociology), or an article in Daedalus.'' At swimmer into a “AAAA” swimmer with- the micro-level, simply increasing the out a concurrent qualitative change in how number of hours one works each day will that work is done. It is not by doing not produce a major change in status if the increasing amounts of work that one be- kind of work done remains the same. comes excellent, but rather by changing It may be hard to believe this completely. the kinds of work. Beyond an_ initial It seems to contradict our “common sense,” improvement of strength, flexibility and what we know from daily experience. The feel, there is little increasing accumulation fact is, when people around us do more, of speed through sheer volume of swim- they do tend to do better. When we play in ming. Instead, athletes move up to the top a weekend softball game, sheer increased ranks through qualitative jumps: notice- effort (at running the bases, say) brings able changes in their techniques, discipline, increased success (“Would a bunch of guys and attitude, accomplished usually through really go at it this hard just for a beer?”). a change in settings, e.g. joining a new Children in Little League are told—and team with a new coach, new friends, etc, their coaches believe—that hard work is who work at a higher level. Without such the major cause of success (Fine 1987), qualitative jumps, no major improvements and swimming coaches widely believe that (movements through levels) will take place. those who stay in the sport the longest and We find the same phenomenon in other swim year-round will be more successful. areas of endeavor. Carl von Clausewitz, The top swimming coaches in America fall writer of the classic 19th century text on into the same prejudice, attributing success military strategy On War, noted that great often to “hard work” or “talent.” Since generals (and he could have added, great they habitually, unreflectively, live at the swimmers and coaches)" rise quickly. top level (having spent almost their entire Especially in wartime, when battlefield coaching career there), they never see performance is the vital need, there is no what creates the differences between levels. long period of apprenticeship before one The fact is, quantitative changes do bring achieves the highest ranks, no tedious success—but only within levels of the “accumulation” of knowledge or skills: sport.'* Doing more of the same pays off, but only in very limited, locally visible . . .Fhe most distinguished generals have ways. One can achieve a slight advantage never risen from the very learned or really over peers by doing more without changing erudite class of officers, but have been mostly the quality of what is done. men who, from the circumstances of their Having seen that “more 1s better” within position, could not have attained to any great local situations, we tend to extrapolate:'° amount of knowledge. (p. 196). . .the only If I work this hard to get to my level, how question therefore is, of what Aind should hard must Olympic swimmers work? If I these ideas be. . .(Clausewitz, etc, p. 197) (emphasis added) '' One realizes this in reading job candidates’ vitae: far better to see one page that lists a Guggenheim The same pattern holds true in academic Fellowship and a National Book Award than fifteen life. The leading figures of a discipline are pages of book reviews in the regional association's not those whose quantity of production is journal. '- Increased effort, for instance, does bring in- so high—although that may give an added creased success. But at the higher levels of the sport, advantage to those who are widely read— virtually everyone works hard, and effort per se is not but rather those who write the quality, or the determining factor that it is among lower level kind, of articles and books that are widely athletes, many of whom do not try very hard. '’ For a different explanation of the tendency to reduce qualitative factors to quantitative, see Lukacs, ' Chambliss, 1988, Chapter 1. 1976. 76 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY sacrifice this much to qualify for the State “well-rounded” children (whatever that Championships, how much must they may mean) are better. The very terminology sacrifice? We believe, extrapolating from of “top” and “level” then, reifies the what we learn about success at our own current ranking system. level, that they must work unbelievably Such reification is not only analytically hard, must feel incredible pressure, must suspect, it is also empirically incorrect. sacrifice more and more to become success- Most swimmers don’t want to win an ful. Assuming implicitly that stratification Olympic gold medal. Some may have, at in sports 1s continuous rather than discrete most, a vague, un-acted upon desire to go (that the differences are quantitative) we someday to the National Championships. believe that top athletes do unbelievable Of course, if an adult asks what a child things. In short, we believe that they must wants to accomplish in swimming, the be superhuman. child may say “I want to win the Olympics,” but this is more to impress or please the *This is really several worlds, each with adults than really to announce the child’s its own patterns of conduct. The analysis own intentions. When younger athletes pursued above can be taken one step talk about such goals, they are sharing further. If, as I have suggested, there fantasies, not announcing plans; and fan- really are qualitative breaks between levels tasies are more often enjoyed in their of the sport, and if people really don’t unreality than in their fulfillment. “work their way up” in any simple additive So we should envision not a swimming sense, perhaps our very conception of a world, but multiple worlds’? (and changing single swimming world is inaccurate. I worlds is a major step toward excellence), have spoken of the “top” of the sport, and a horizontal rather than vertical differen- of “levels” within the sport. But these tiation of the sport. What I have called words suggest that all swimmers are, so to “levels” are better described as “worlds” speak, climbing a single ladder, aiming or “spheres.” In one such world, parents towards the same goals, sharing the same are loosely in charge, coaches are teenagers values, swimming the same strokes, all employed as life guards, practices are held looking upwards towards an Olympic gold a few times a week, competitions are medal. But they aren’t.'* Some want gold scheduled perhaps a week in advance, the medals, some want to make the Team, season lasts for a few weeks in the summer- some want to exercise, or have fun with time, and athletes who are much faster friends, or be out in the sunshine and than the others may be discouraged by water. Some are trying to escape their social pressure even from competing, for parents. The images of the “top” and the they take the fun out of it.'° The big event “levels” of swimming which I have used of the season is the City Championship, until! now may simply reflect the dominance when children from the metropolitan area of a certain faction of swimmers and will spend two days racing each other in coaches in the sport: top is what they many events, and the rest of the time regard as the top, and their definitions of sitting under huge tents playing cards, success have the broadest political currency reading, listening to music, and gossiping. in United States Swimming. Fast swimmers In another world, coaches are very power- take as given that faster is better—instead ful, parents seen only occasionally (and of, say, that more beautiful is better; or never on the pool deck), swimmers travel that parental involvement is better; or that thousands of miles to attend meets, they swim 6 days a week for years at a time, and the fastest among them are objects of '4 March and Olsen make a similar point with regard to educational institutions and organizations in general: organizations include a variety of consti- 'S See Shibutani in Rose, 1962, on “social worlds”; tuents with differing goals, plans, motivations, and Blumer, 1969. values. Unity of purpose, even with organizations, 16 These fast swimmers who come to slow meets cannot simply be assumed. Coherence, not diversity, are called hot dogs, showoffs, or even jerks. (Personal is what needs explaining. March and Olsen, 1976. observations.) THE MUNDANITY OF EXCELLENCE 7] respect and praise. The big event of the the obvious fact that moving “up” to the season may be the National Champion- Olympic level is very difficult, while moving ships, where the athletes may spend much “down” is apparently easy, as if a sort of time—sitting under huge tents, playing gravity obtained. We all know that people cards, reading, listening to music and don’t become Olympic champions in a gossiping. '” day. It takes time to learn all those skills, Each such world has its own distinctive pick up the techniques, develop the sta- types of powerful people and dominant mina, change the attitudes, practice the athletes, and being prominent in one discipline. The physical work as well as the world is no guarantee of being prominent social and psychological readjustments are in another.'® At lower levels, the parents significant. This difficulty seems to suggest of swimmers are in charge; at the higher an asymmetry to these worlds. levels, the coaches; perhaps in the Masters Less obvious, though, is that “sliding teams which are made up only of swimmers back down” is empirically difficult indeed. over 25 years old, the swimmers themselves. For one thing, techniques once learned Each world, too, has its distinctive goals: and habitualized don’t deteriorate over- going to the Olympics, doing well at the night. Quite a few swimmers, years past National Junior Olympics, winning the retirement from the sport, can come out City Meet, having a good time for a few and with a few months’ practice do quite weeks. In each world the techniques are at well. In 1972 a 16-year old named Sandra least somewhat distinct (as with the breast- Nielson won three gold medals in the stroke, discussed above) and certain de- Munich Olympics in swimming. In 1984, mands are made on family and friends. In just after turning 29, she entered the all of these ways, and many more, each so- National Long Course Championships, called “level” of competitive swimming ts placed in the finals, and swam faster than qualitatively different than others. The she had 12 years earlier—and with far less differences are not simply quantifiable training.'” At that point she had been steps along a one-dimensional path leading away from competition for 10 years, re- to the Olympic Games. Goals are varied, turning only months before the Nationals. participants have competing commitments, Nielson had lost very little of her ability. and techniques are jumbled (again, see Then too, there seem to be permanent March and Olsen, 1976). or at least persistent effects of hard training; This notion of the horizontal differen- attitudes of competitiveness and _strat- tiation of the sport—of separate worlds egies for racing once learned are rarely within competitive swimming, rather than forgotten.*” And finally—perhaps as a hierarchy—may appear to be refuted by significantly—the social pressures are strongly against “going back” to a lower '” Again, personal observations from a large number level of competition. Hotshots simply are of cases. While there are significant differences not welcome in the country club leagues between swimmers of the Olympic class and a while they are hotshots, and if their skills country club league, the basic sociability of their do begin to deteriorate, embarrassment worlds is not one of them. will more likely lead one simply to quit the '* “Indeed, prestige ladders in the various worlds are so different that a man who reaches the pinnacle sport rather than continue. This may be of success in one may be completely unknown roughly akin to the older professor who, elsewhere.” Shibutani in Rose, 1962. rather than attempt to compete with Similarly in academia: one may be a successful professor at the national level and yet find it difficult to gain employment at a minor regional university. '9 The training information comes from her coach Professors at the regional school may suspect his/her and, later, husband, Dr. Keith Bell. motives, be jealous, feel that he/she “wouldn't fit in,” “° Some anecdotal evidence from swimmers (e.g. “won't stay anyway,” etc. Many top-school graduate Steve Lundquist) and coaches (e.g. Terry Stoddard) students discover upon entering the markets that no- suggests that the physical effects of hard training can name colleges have no interest in them; indeed, by last for years, so that a swimmer in effect “rachets attending a Chicago or Harvard Ph.D. program one up” to higher levels with better training, and will not may limit oneself to the top ranks of employment slow down appreciably once the training load is opportunities. reduced. 78 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY younger colleagues in a fast-moving field, what about talent?. “Talent” is perhaps the begins to fill his or her time with more most pervasive lay explanation we have committee duties and foundation con- for athletic success. Great athletes, we sultantships. Graceful senior retirement is seem to believe, are born with a special preferable to humiliating decline. gift, almost a “thing” inside of them, All of this (admittedly provocative) denied to the rest of us—perhaps physical, argument is to suggest that the swimming genetic, psychological, or physiological. world is really several different worlds, Some have “it,” and some don’t. Some are and the “top” performers are better seen “natural athletes,” and some aren’t. While as different than as better. Even that an athlete, we acknowledge, may require formulation suggests that at one point the many years of training and dedication to excellent performer could have been domi- develop and use that talent, it is always “in nant at a lesser level in that other world. there,” only waiting for an opportunity to But as Clausewitz pointed out, in com- come out. When children perform well, paring the highest commanders in Napo- they are said to “have” talent; if perform- leon’s army with a colonel, ance declines, they may be said to have “wasted their talent”. We believe it is that There are Field Marshals who would not talent, conceived as a substance behind the have shone at the head of a cavalry regiment, surface reality of performance, which finally and vice versa. (Clausewitz 1984, p.198). distinguishes the best among our athletes. But talent fails as an explanation for Some people don’t even begin to shine, athletic success, on conceptual grounds. It that is, until they reach the higher levels. mystifies excellence, subsuming a complex For our purposes here, Clausewitz’s “vice set of discrete actions behind a single versa” in the quotation above reminds us undifferentiated concept. To understand of the separation of subworlds, and of the these actions and the excellence which major points made: “levels” of swimming they constitute, then, we should first de- are qualitatively distinct; stratification in bunk this concept of talent, and see where the sport is discrete, not continuous; and it fails. On at least three points, I believe, the sport is most accurately seen as a “talent” 1s inadequate: collection of (relatively) independent worlds. * Factors other than talent explain athletic success more precisely. We can, with a little effort, see what these factors are in swimming: geographical location, par- Il. Why “Talent” does not lead to Excellence ticularly living in southern California where Up to now, I have suggested that there are the sun shines year round and everybody discrete social worlds of competitive swims; fairly high family income, which swimming, and that an athlete joins those allows for the travel to meets and payments different worlds by adopting the behavior of the fees entailed in the sport, not to patterns of members. This argument 1m- mention sheer access to swimming pools plies, first, that most people actually don’t when one is young; one’s height, weight, want to belong to the highest rank, and and proportions; the luck or choice of second, that the role of effort is exagger- having a good coach, who can teach the ated. I am suggesting that athletic excellence skills required; inherited muscle structure is widely attainable, if usually unsought. —it certainly helps to be both strong and Many people—let us say, hundreds of flexible; parents who are interested in thousands in this country—have the physi- sports. Some swimmers, too, enjoy more cal wherewithal to belong to the Olympic the physical pleasures of swimming; some class. While there may be an “entry level” have better coordination; some even have of physical characteristics necessary for a higher percentage of fast-twitch muscle Olympic performances, that level may be fiber. Such factors are clearly definable, quite low, and in any case is not measurable. and their effects can be clearly demon- At this point most readers will ask, But strated. To subsume all of them, willy- THE MUNDANITY OF EXCELLENCE 79 nilly, under the rubric of “talent” obscures until after its effects become obvious. rather than illuminates the sources of Kalinowski’s research on Olympic swim- athletic excellence. mers demonstrates this clearly: It’s easy to do this, especially if one’s only exposure to top athletes comes once One of the more startling discoveries of every four years while watching the Olym- our study has been that it takes a while to pics on television, or if one only sees them recognize swimming talent. Indeed, it usually in performances rather than in day-to-day takes being successful at a regional level, and training. Say, for instance, that one day I more often, at a national level (in AAU turn on the television set and there witness swimming) before the child is identified as a magnificent figure skating performance talented. (p. 173) by Scott Hamilton. What I see is grace and “They didn’t say I had talent until I started power and skill all flowing together, seem- to get really good [and made Senior Nationals at sixteen]; then they started to say I had ingly without effort: a single moving picture, ° talent. . .” (p. 174) rapid and sure, far beyond what I could . . despite the physical capabilities he was myself do. In phenomenological terms, | born with, it took Peter several years (six by see Hamilton’s performance “monothetic- our estimate) to appear gifted. This is the ally,” at a single glance, all-at-once. (Schutz predominant, though not exclusive, pattern and Luckmann, 1973, p. 75) “His skating,” found in our data on swimmers. Most of I may say, referring to his actions as a them are said to be “natural” or “gifted” single thing, “is spectacular.” With that after they had already devoted a great deal of quick shorthand, I have captured (I believe) time and hard work to the field. (p. 194) at a stroke the wealth of tiny details that . .whatever superior qualities were attri- buted to him as he grew older and more Hamilton, over years and years, has fitted successful, they were not apparent then together into a performance so smoothly [before he was thirteen]. (p. 200) that they become invisible to the untrained eye.~' Perhaps, with concentration, Hamil- ton himself can feel the details in his The above quotations suggest that talent movements; certainly a great coach can is discovered later in one’s career, the see them, and pick out the single fault or implication being that while the athlete’s mistake in an otherwise flawless routine. ability existed all along, we were unaware But to me, the performance is a thing of it until late. Kalinowski, like many of entire. us, holds to the belief that there must be Afterwards, my friends and I sit and talk this thing inside the athlete which precedes about Hamilton’s life as a “career of and determines success, only later to be excellence,” or as showing “incredible discovered. But the recurring evidence he dedication,” “tremendous motivation”— finds suggests a different interpretation: perhaps there is no such thing as “talent,” again, as if his excellence, his dedication, his motivation somehow exist all-at-once. there is only the outstanding performance His excellence becomes a thing inside of itself. He sees success and immediately him which he periodically reveals to us, infers behind it a cause, a cause for which which comes out now and then; his life and he has no evidence other than the success habits become reified. “Talent” is merely itself. Here, as elsewhere, talent (our the word we use to label this reification. name for this cause) cannot be measured, But that is no explantion of success. or seen, or felt, in any form other than the success to which it supposedly gives rise. *Talent is indistinguishable from its In Kalinowski’s analysis, then—and the effects. One cannot see that talent exists lay view is much the same as his—there lies an analytic error of the first degree: the ~"21 “Now, no one can see in an artist’s work how it independent and the dependent variables evolved: that is its advantage, for wherever we can cannot be measured separately.” see the evolution, we grow somewhat cooler. The complete art of representation wards off all thought of its solution; it tyrannizes as present perfection.” *° Tam not saying “natural ability doesn’t matter.” (Nietzsche 1984, p. 111) I am saying that to use “talent” as a way of 80 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

*The “amount” of talent needed for look at what people actually do that athletic success seems to be strikingly low. creates outstanding performance. It seems initially plausible that one must The concept of talent hinders a clear have a certain level of natural ability in understanding of excellence. By providing order to succeed in sports (or music, or a quick yet spurious “explanation” of academics). But upon empirical examin- athletic success, it satisfies our casual ation, it becomes very difficult to say curiosity while requiring neither an em- exactly what that physical minimum is. pirical analysis nor a critical questioning of Indeed, much of the mythology of sport 1s our tacit assumptions about top athletes. built around people who lack natural At best, it is an easy way of admitting that ability who went on to succeed fabulously. we don’t know the answer, a kind of An entire genre of inspirational literature layman’s slang for “unexplained variance.” is built on the theme of the person whose But the attempt at explanation fails. What even normal natural abilities have been we call talent is no more than a projected destroyed: Wilma Rudolph had polio as a reification of particular things done: hands child, then came back to win the Olympic placed correctly in the water, turns crisply 100 Meter Dash. Glenn Cunningham had executed, a head held high rather than low his legs badly burned in a fire, then broke in the water. Through the notion of talent, the world record in the mile. Such stories we transform particular actions that a are grist for the sportwriter’s mill. human being does into an object possessed, More than merely common, these stories held in trust for the day when it will be are almost routine. Most Olympic cham- revealed for all to see. pions, when their history is studied, seem This line of thought leads to one more to have overcome sharp adversity in their step. Since talent can be viewed only pursuit of success. Automobile accidents, indirectly in the effects that it supposedly shin splints, twisted ankles, shoulder sur- produces, its very existence is a matter of gery are common in such tales. In fact, faith. The basic dogma of “talent” says they are common in life generally. While that what people do in this world has a some necessary minimum of physical cause lying behind them, that there is a strength, heart/lung capacity, or nerve kind of backstage reality where the real density may well be required for athletic things happen, and what we, you and I, achievement (again, I am not denying see here in our lives (say, the winning of a differential advantages), that minimum gold medal) is really a reflection of that seems both difficult to define and markedly true reality back there. Those of us who low, at least in many cases. Perhaps the are not admitted to the company of the crucial factor is not natural ability at all, elect—the talented—can never see what but the willingness to overcome natural or that other world of fabulous success is unnatural disabilities of the sort that most really like, and can never share those of us face, ranging from minor inconve- experiences. And accepting this faith in niences in getting up and going to work, to talent, I suggest, we relinquish our accidents and injuries, to gross physical chance of accurately understanding ex- impairments. cellence. And if the basic level of talent needed, Still, we want to believe in talent. As then, seems so low as to be nearly univer- Jean-Paul Sartre put it, “What people sally available, perhaps the very concept of would like is that a coward or a hero be talent itself—no longer differentiating born that way.”?°, knowing that it protects among performers—is better discarded us by degrading the very achievements altogether. It simply doesn’t explain the that it pretends to elevate (Staples 1987); differences in outcomes. Rather than talk magically separating us from those people about talent and ability, we do better to who are great athletes, ensuring that we are incomparable to them; and relieving those of us who are not excellent of explaining performance is to resort to tautology. The action of performing is reified—turned into a thing— and we call it “talent.” *3 Sartre 1957, p. 34. THE MUNDANITY OF EXCELLENCE 81 responsibility for our own condition. “To squeezed together over the head, and a call someone ‘divine’,” Friedrich Nietzsche little faster; then how to place the hands in once wrote, “means ‘Here we do not have the water so no air is cupped in them; then to compete.’” (Nietzsche, 1984, p. 111) In how to lift them over the water; then how the mystified notion of talent, the un- to lift weights to properly build strength, analyzed pseudo-explanation of outstand- and how to eat the right foods, and to wear ing performance, we codify our own deep the best suits for racing, and on and on.”° psychological resistance to the simple reality Each of those tasks seems small in itself, of the world, to the overwhelming mun- but each allows the athlete to swim a bit danity of excellence." faster. And having learned and consistently practiced all of them together, and many more besides, the swimmer may compete Ill. The Mundanity of Excellence in the Olympic Games. The winning of a “People don’t know how ordinary success gold medal is nothing more than the is,” said Mary T. Meagher, winner of 3 synthesis of a countless number of such gold medals in the Los Angeles Olympics, little things—even if some of them are when asked what the public least under- done unwittingly or by others, and thus stands about her sport. She then spoke of called “luck.” starting her career in a summer league So the “little things” really do count. We country club team, of working her way to have already seen how a very small (in AAU meets, to faster and faster com- quantitative terms) difference can produce petitions; of learning new techniques, a noticeable success. Even apparent flukes practicing new habits, meeting new chal- can lead to gold medal performances: lenges.**> What Meagher said—that success is Ordinary, in some sense—applies, I In the 100 Meter Freestyle event in Los believe, to other fields of endeavor as well: Angeles, Rowdy Gaines, knowing that the to business, to politics, to professions of all starter for the race tended to fire the gun fast, kinds, including academics. In what follows anticipated the start; while not actually I will try to elaborate on this point, jumping the gun, it seems from video replays drawing some examples from the swimming of the race that Gaines knew exactly when to research, and some from other fields, to go, and others were left on the blocks as he indicate the scope of this conception. took off. But the starter turned his back, and the protests filed afterwards by competitors were ignored. Gaines had spent years * Excellence is mundane. Superlative per- watching starters, and had talked with his formance is really a confluence of dozens coach (Richard Quick) before the race about of small skills or activities, each one this starter in particular. (Field notes; see learned or stumbled upon, which have Chambliss, 1988 for full description) been carefully drilled into habit and then are fitted together in a synthesized whole. Gaines was not noticeably faster than There is nothing extraordinary or super- several of the other swimmers in the race, human in any one of those actions; only but with this one extra tactic, he gained the fact that they are done consistently and enough of an advantage to win the race. correctly, and all together, produce excel- And he seemed in almost all of his races to lence. When a swimmer learns a proper find such an advantage: hence the gold flip turn in the freestyle races, she will medal. Looking at such subtleties, we can swim the race a bit faster; then a stream- say that not only are the little things lined push off from the wall, with the arms important; in some ways, the little things are the only things. — Peter Drucker,the dean of American “+ To coin an ungainly but accurate phrase. I borrow the term “mundanity” from phenomenological management consultants, suggests a similar philosopher Maurice Natanson, in The Journeying idea when he writes of business “practices,” Self ~ Meagher’s entire career is described in detail in °° Such techniques are thoroughly explained in Chambliss, 1988. Maglischo (1982) and Troup and Reese (1983). 82 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY the little things which taken together alone individuals? A willingness to spend produce excellence. In his widely-read ten minutes a year writing a Christmas books, especially The Effective Executive card can maintain an old friendship for (1985), Drucker emphasizes that it is not decades; a faulty telephone system, which magic, but rather the faithful execution of cuts off one-quarter (or even one-tenth) of particular practices that leads to success in all incoming calls can ruin a travel agency business: or mail-order house; a president who simply walks around the plant once in a . .to be effective also does not require while, talking with the workers, can dra- special gifts, special aptitude, or special matically improve an organization’s morale training. Effectiveness as an executive de- —and its product (Peters and Waterman, mands doing certain—and fairly simple— 1982); a secretary, that archetypal manager things. It consists of a small number of of mundane work, can make or destroy an practices. . . (Drucker 1985, p. vil) executive, or even an entire division. At the lowest levels of competitive swimming, In swimming, or elsewhere, these prac- simply showing up for regular practices tices might at first glance seem very produces the greatest single speed im- minimal indeed: provement the athlete will ever experi- ence*®; and at the lower levels of academia, When Mary T. Meagher was 13 years old the sheer willingness to put arguments and had qualified for the National Champion- down on paper and send it away to a ships, she decided to try to break the world journal distinguishes one from the mass of record in the 200 Meter Butterfly race. She one’s colleagues in the discipline.*? Again, made two immediate qualitative changes in the conclusion: the simple doing of certain her routine: first, she began coming on time small tasks can generate huge results. to all practices. She recalls now, years later, Excellence is mundane. being picked up at school by her mother and driving (rather quickly) through the streets of * Motivation is mundane, too. Swimmers Louisville, Kentucky trying desperately to make it to the pool on time. That habit, go to practice to see their friends, to that discipline, she now says, gave her the exercise, to feel strong afterwards, to im- sense that every minute of practice time press the coach, to work towards bettering counted. And second, she began doing all of a time they swam in the last meet. Some- her turns, during those practices, correctly, times, the older ones, with a longer view of in strict accordance with the competitive the future, will aim towards a meet that is rules. Most swimmers don’t do this; they turn still several months away. But even given rather casually, and tend to touch with one the longer-term goals, the daily satisfactions hand instead of two (in the butterfly, need to be there. The mundane social Meagher’s stroke). This, she says, accustomed rewards really are crucial (see Chambliss, her to doing things one step better than those 1988, Chapter 6). By comparison, the big, around her—always. Those are the two major changes she made in her training, as dramatic motivations—winning an Olympic she remembers it.7’ gold medal, setting a world record—seem to be ineffective unless translated into shorter-term tasks. Viewing “Rocky” or Meagher made two quite mundane changes in her habits, either one of which anyone could do, if he or she wanted. °° In teaching swim lessons, I have seen children Within a year Meagher had broken the make improvements of 20 and more seconds for a 50- world record in the butterfly. yard swim (which takes about a minute) during the Here, then, is an area ripe for research course of a single lesson. At the top level, swimmers spend years to improve one second in the same event. in organizational studies: to what extent -° The fact that the reader might not believe this do mundane considerations lead to the reveals more about the reader’s own social world— success or failure of organizations, let namely of professionally active scholars—than the realities of life for the bulk of college professors. For many, simply participating in scholarship is a huge -7 Interview notes. step. THE MUNDANITY OF EXCELLENCE 83

“Chariots of Fire” may inspire one for lower resistance to subsequent proposals. several days, but the excitement stirred by Small wins are controllable opportunities a film wears off rather quickly when that produce visible results. (Weick 1984, confronted with the day-to-day reality of p. 43). climbing out of bed to go and jump in cold water. If, on the other hand, that day-to- For instance, many top swimmers are day reality is itself fun, rewarding, chal- accustomed to winning races in practice, lenging, if the water is nice and friends are day after day. Steve Lundquist, who won supportive, the longer-term goals may well two gold medals in Los Angeles, sees his be achieved almost in spite of themselves. success as resulting from an early decision Again, Mary T. Meagher: that he wanted to win every swim, every day, in every practice. That was the I never looked beyond the next year, and I immediate goal he faced at workouts: just never looked beyond the next level. I never try to win every swim, every lap, in every thought about the Olympics when I was ten; stroke, no matter what. Lundquist gained at that time I was thinking about the State a reputation in swimming for being a Championships. When I made cuts for ferocious workout swimmer, one who Regionals [the next higher level of compe- competed all the time, even in the warmup. tition], I started thinking about Regionals; He became so accustomed to winning that when I made cuts for National Junior Olym- he entered meets knowing that he could pics, I started thinking about National Junior beat these people—he had developed the Olympics. . .I can’t even think about the [1988] Olympics right now. . .Things can habit, every day, of never losing. The overwhelm you if you think too far ahead. short-term goal of winning this swim, in (Interview notes) this workout, translated into his ability to win bigger and bigger races. Competition, when the day arrived for a meet, was not a This statement was echoed by many of shock to him, nothing at all out of the the swimmers I interviewed. While many ordinary.”' of them were working towards the Olympic Games, they divided the work along the This leads to a third and final point: way into achievable steps, no one of which *In the pursuit of excellence, maintaining was too big. They found their challenges in mundanity is the key psychological chal- small things: working on a better start this lenge. In common parlance, winners don’t week, polishing up their backstroke tech- choke. Faced with what seems to be a nique next week, focusing on better sleep tremendous challenge or a strikingly un- habits, planning how to pace their swim. usual event such as the Olympic Games, They concentate on what Karl Weick has the better athletes take it as a normal, called “small wins:” the very definable, manageable situation® (“It’s just another minor achievements which can be rather swim meet,” is a phrase sometimes used by easily done but which produce significant top swimmers at a major event such as the effects*’, not the least of which is the Games) and do what is necessary to deal confidence to attempt another such “small with it. Standard rituals (such as the win.” Weick’s article on the subject 1s, warmup, the psych, the visualization of the typically, insightful and suggestive. He race, the taking off of sweats, and the like) Says: are ways of importing one’s daily habits into the novel situation, to make it as A small win is a concrete, complete, normal an event as possible. Swimmers implemented outcome of moderate import- like Lundquist who train at competition- ance. By itself, one small win may seem unimportant. A series of wins at small but significant tasks, however, reveals a pattern *! Interview notes. that may attract allies, deter opponents, and *2 An interesting parallel: some of the most successful generals have no trouble sleeping before *° For an application of this notion to college and after major battles. For details on Ulysses Grant education, see Chambliss and Ryan, 1988. and the Duke of Wellington, see Keegan, p. 207. 84 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY level intensity therefore have an advantage: personal example of failing to maintain a arriving at a meet, they are already accus- sense of mundanity, from the world of tomed to doing turns correctly, taking academia: the inability to finish the doctoral legal starts, doing a proper warmup, and thesis, the hopeless struggle for the magnum being aggressive from the outset of the opus. Upon my arrival to graduate school competition. If each day of the season is some 12 years ago, I was introduced to an approached with a seriousness of purpose, advanced student we will call Michael. then the big meet will not come as a shock. Michael was very bright, very well thought The athlete will believe “I belong here, of by his professors, and very hard working, this is my world”—and not be paralyzed claiming (apparently truthfully) to log a by fear or self-consciousness. The task minimum of twelve hours a day at his then is to have training closely approximate studies. Senior scholars sought out his competition conditions. comments on their manuscripts, and their Consider the problem of “maintaining acknowledgements always mentioned him mundanity” in other professions: by name. All the signs pointed to a (1) An actor in a play is called upon to successful career. Yet seven years later, walk on stage, go to a table and pick up a when I left the university, Michael was still telephone. On opening night, a novice there—still working 12 hours a day, only a performer will be nervous—but why? bit less well thought of. At last report’’, Surely walking across a room and answering there he remains, toiling away: “finishing a telephone are almost prototypically mun- up,” in the common expression. dane events. But the actor’s challenge is to In our terms, Michael could not main- maintain a sense of mundanity while under tain his sense of mundanity. He never abnormal conditions: in Schutzian terms accepted that a dissertation is a mundane (Schutz 1971), actors make the normally piece of work, nothing more than some taken-for-granted world appear taken-for- words which one person writes and a few granted, even when it is not. Rehearsals, other people read. He hasn't learned that especially the “competition intensity” dress the real exams, the true tests (such as the rehearsals, are a device for easing the dissertation requirement) in graduate school transition into the extra-mundane. are really designed to discover whether at (2) A college commencement speaker some point one is willing just to turn the finds himself asked to speak before an damn thing in. audience of thousands. He believes that The mundanity of excellence is typically somehow this larger audience requires a unrecognized. I think the reason is fairly larger message, that he must be a super- simple. Usually we see great athletes only human to speak to them, with a message after they have become great—after the grand and inspiring—and he panics. But years of learning the new methods, gaining the most successful such speakers are the habits of competitiveness and consis- those who enjoy speaking, or who at least tency, after becoming comfortable in their can maintain their composure, who keep world. They have long since perfected the their sense that this is just another speech, myriad of techniques that together consti- and not a life-changing event. They joke tute excellence. Ignorant of all of the with the audience, they stand at ease at the specific steps that have led to the perform- podium, implicitly recalling how many ance and to the confidence, we think that speeches they have made or how many this somehow excellence sprang fullgrown from audience has heard; and they know that this person, and we say he or she “has sometimes the very best speeches are talent” or “is gifted.” Even when seen delivered in the belief that “the world will close up, the mundanity of excellence 1s little note nor long remember what we say often not believed: here.””” (3) Perhaps I could suggest a final, more Every week at the Mission Viejo training pool, where the National Champion Nada- *S For the forgetful reader, the phrase comes from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. ** Admittedly not first-hand. THE MUNDANITY OF EXCELLENCE 85

dores team practiced, coaches from around 2) Talent is a useless concept. Varying the world would be on the deck visiting, conceptions of natural ability (“talent,” watching as the team did their workouts, e.g.) tend to mystify excellence, treating it swimming back and forth for hours. The as the inherent possession of a few; they visiting coaches would be excited at first, just mask the concrete actions that create to be here; then, soon—within an hour or so, outstanding performance; they avoid the usually—they grew bored, walking back and forth looking at the deck, glancing around at work of empirical analysis and _ logical the hills around the town, reading the bulletin explanations (clear definitions, separable boards, glancing down at their watches, independent and dependent variables, and wondering, after the long flight out to Cali- at least an attempt at establishing the fornia, when something dramatic was going temporal priority of the cause); and finally, to happen. “They all have to come to Mecca, such conceptions perpetuate the sense of and see what we do,” coach Mark Schubert innate psychological differences between said. “They think we have some big secret.” high performers and other people. (Field notes) 3) Excellence is mundane. Excellence is accomplished through the doing of actions, But of course there is no secret; there is ordinary in themselves, performed con- only the doing of all those little things, sistently and carefully, habitualized, com- each one done correctly, time and again, pounded together, added up over time. until excellence in every detail becomes a While these actions are “qualitatively firmly ingrained habit, an ordinary part of different” from those of performers at one’s everyday life. other levels, these differences are neither unmanageable nor, taken one step at a time, terribly difficult. Mary T. Meagher CONCLUSIONS came to practice on time; some writers The foregoing analysis suggests that we always work for three hours each morning, have overlooked a fundamental fact about before beginning anything else; a business- Olympic-class athletes; and the argument person may go ahead and make that tough may apply far more widely than swimming, phone call; a job applicant writes one or sports. I suggest that it applies to more letter; a runner decides, against the success in business, politics, and academics, odds, to enter the race; a county commis- in dentistry, bookkeeping, food service, sioner submits a petition to run for Con- speechmaking, electrical engineering, sell- gress; a teenager asks for a date; an actor ing insurance (when the clients are upset, attends one more audition. Every time a you climb in the car and go out there to talk decision comes up, the qualitatively with them) and perhaps even in the arts.” “correct” choice will be made. The action, Consider again the major points: in itself, is nothing special; the care and consistency with which it is made is. 1) Excellence is a qualitative phenom- Howard Becker has presented a similar enon. Doing more does not equal doing argument about the ordinariness of appar- better. High performers focus on quali- ently unusual people in his book Outsiders tative, not quantitative, improvements; it (1961). But where he speaks of deviance, I is qualitative improvements which produce would speak of excellence. Becker says, significant changes in level of achievement; and | concur: different levels of achievement really are We ought not to view it as something distinct, and in fact reflect vastly different special, as depraved or in some magical way habits, values, and goals. better than other kinds of behavior. We ought to see it simply as a kind of behavior * Professor Margaret Bates, an opera enthusiast, some disapprove of and others value, studying tells me that this “mundanity of excellence” argu- the processes by which either or both perspec- ment applies nicely to Enrico Caruso, the great tives are built up and maintained. Perhaps singer, who carefully perfected each ordinary detail the best surety against either extreme is close of his performance in an effort to overcome a contact with the people we study (Becker, recognized lack of “natural ability.” p. 176).