Analytical models and interpretative controversies

Abstract

There's something disturbing about any genealogical investigation of notions that seek to qualify the factors of success in highly non-routine activities that involve invention, creativity and the emergence of the new. The problem of definition is perpetual. We have seen how values such as "grace", " facilita " or "je-ne-sais-quoi" have been invoked as meta-rules that lend their variability to the application of rules by artists, and to the application of criteria for judging and evaluating works by critics and audiences.

In his Flaubert, Jean-Paul Sartre writes of talent that it is an indefinable notion, revealed only in the course of the work, and that it is in fact the success attributed to the work a posteriori that is projected onto the author. Ironically, Sartre likens it to the dormative virtue of opium, as described by Molière in Le Malade imaginaire [13]. Should we simply subscribe to this argument of recourse to mythological or fallacious notions? The history of the arts and sciences offers a wealth of material for attempts to define and locate the factors behind successful creation, and the factors responsible for major scientific discoveries. We retrace some of the salient episodes.

Controversies surrounding the notions of genius and talent take another turn when inflationary rhetoric is deployed in the evaluation of people and their achievements. In a way, this inflationary rhetoric is tantamount to sacralizing, and at the same time trivializing, the enigma of personal success at its height. At the end of his investigation into the notion of genius and its history, historian Darrin McMahon [14] notes the inflation of the vocabulary of genius in the 20th^century, and the development of a market for books, advice, educational precepts, self-educational precepts ("awaken or awaken the genius within you"), particularly in the United States, where the meritocracy of talent, coupled with motivation, is the secular religion of the "land of opportunity". Genius is everywhere: in business, in sport, in the entertainment industry, among innovators. The list of works McMahon cites to support demonetization by inflation speaks for itself [15].

This ironic critique of advertising exaggeration around genius is actually present throughout the twentieth^century. In Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities, for example, the hero, Ulrich, is astonished that a brilliant racehorse can be described as genius, which, Musil notes, should symmetrically lead one not to be astonished that a brilliant scientific discovery will in future be referred to as a feat or a record. We take as our starting point Jacques Bouveresse's study of Musil's analyses of the average, the exceptional and genius [16].

We then examine three critical perspectives on the use of the notions of talent and genius. One focuses on evaluation procedures, the second on the abusive individualization of the imputation of talent and genius, and the third on acts of work that generate admirable results. In each case, the principle of criticism consists in turning what appears to be an explanans - evaluation, individualization, work - into an explanandum. The arts, even more than the sciences, offer a good field of study, as they maximize the relief of the problems to be explored.

If the imputation of talent and genius is a matter of evaluation, we need to examine how these operations are carried out. We analyze the general argument of the critique as follows. Reputation attributions of talent or genius are :

Based on imperfect evaluation procedures, linked to the imperfect information available to each individual and to the many possible manoeuvres.
Based on self-reinforcing mechanisms for consolidating acquired reputations, which introduce more inertia than mobility into reputations - notably through the institutional and status amplification triggered by the mechanism of cumulative advantage.
Based on comparison procedures that end up concentrating admiration at the top, without knowing how much those at the top differ from those a little further down the hierarchy of values, but with the certainty that those at the top win most of the recognition.

Evaluation operations are comparative and proceed by ordinal ranking wherever a direct measurement of the value of an achievement or performance (as practised in sports) is impossible. Why is this? The full answer is: competition for originality, the valorization of novelty as an emerging and unpredictable value, and the low anticipation capacity of consumer preferences determine uncertainty about the relative quality of individuals and goods competing for originality. This uncertainty is expressed in the strong indeterminacy of the combinations of qualities required for success, and in the imperfection of assessment criteria.
We then ask under what conditions it is possible to admire that, or those, which completely surpass us. Two arguments are presented. John Rawls argues that:

[...] when we see in others the exercise of high-level skills, we take pleasure in it, and the desire arises in us to do similar things ourselves. We want to be like those individuals who have developed skills that we find latent in our nature [17].

The other argument can be summed up as a formula for self-protection against envy through the benefit of incommensurability, and Nietzsche gave an eloquent formulation:

" Since we think well of ourselves, but without going so far as to expect ever to be able to make even a sketch of a Raphael canvas, or a scene comparable to that in a Shakespeare drama, we persuade ourselves that such faculties are the result of a truly above-average prodigy, represent an extremely rare chance, or, if we still have religious feelings, a grace from on high. It is our vanity and self-love that drive us to the cult of genius: we have to imagine it far away from us, as a true miraculum, so that it doesn't hurt us. " [18].

References

[13] Jean-Paul Sartre, L'Idiot de la famille, vol. 3, Paris, Gallimard, 1972.

[14]Darrin McMahon, Divine Fury. A History of Genius, New York, Basic Books, 2013.

[15]"Once genius was born, now it is (self)-made. That, at least, is the claim of a flourishing self-help literature that others genius as a lifestyle and aspiration. Have a look at How to Be a Genius: Your Brain and How to Train It. Or set your imagination on fire in Ignite the Genius Within. For those who prefer fewer flames, there are Sparks of Genius: The Thirteen Thinking Tools of the World's Most Creative People, or the "30 Ways to Spark Your Inner Genius" in Everyday Smart. Becoming a Problem Solving Genius is within your grasp, as is Uncommon Genius: How Great Ideas Are Born, or even Ordinary Genius: A Guide for the Poet Within. You can "unlock your inner genius" in Thought Revolution. Or learn how to think like "history's ten most revolutionary minds" in Discover Your Genius. Stumble upon "your best ideas" in Accidental Genius. Cracking Creativity, according to its subtitle, discloses the Secrets of Creative Genius, and Practical Genius provides, as its subtitle proclaims, the Real Smarts You Need to Get Your Talents and Passions Working for You. You can learn How to Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci in a book of that title, poke around in Pocket Genius, or rummage through Junk Genius. There is Football Genius, Negotiation Genius, and A Genius for Deception, which recounts How Cunning Helped the British Win Two World Wars. And, if you have done all of that and want something more, consult So, You're a Creative Genius... Now What? Or put a little spice in your life with Penis Genius: The Best Tips and Tricks for Working His Stick. There is genius in just about everything these days. As one recent bestseller sums it up, there is Genius in All of Us ", Darrin McMahon, ibid. p. 234-235.