close-up of lifeless relic from seashore

Rationalizing Sisyphus

 Published on September 17, 2015 /  Written by /  Reviewed by Jessica Knott and Phillip M. Edwards /  “almost” by Fio; CC BY-NC 2.0 /  2

The words of one of the bleakest authors on the human condition adorn coffee mugs and motivational posters, his hopelessness twisted into inspiration for those on the neverending search for the right formula for success. This is a great misunderstanding.  Perhaps he would find this all ironic, but to Samuel Beckett there was no solace in failure, no celebration of failure as a stepping stone to success.  Rather, there was an acceptance of the Sisyphean struggle to translate the human condition beyond the intangible.  Beckett’s engagement (to the point of obsession) with failure was due to an inextricable belief that failure was permanent in his condition.

This is not Samuel Beckett as sold to us by Elon Musk and Richard Branson and Timothy Ferris, quoting the initial lines of Beckett’s novella Worstward Ho as mantra:  “Ever tried.  Ever failed.  No matter.  Try again.  Fail again.  Fail better.”  The historical Beckett, for whom failure was not a roadblock on the path of progress but rather an individual road of personal potholes, has been diluted to the self-help Beckett, who vanquishes the failure villain in the name of individual exceptionalism.  

Why are we interested in celebrating failure, a word whose education connotation is linked to a negative finality?  In recent years a growing chorus have sought to engage the failure rhetoric of Silicon Valley within the structure of education, believing students lack resiliency because our current structure coddles them.  In popular media this argument sparked in a 2012 Chronicle of Higher Education article from Wheaton College’s Paula Krebs, where Krebs notes a moment of personal epiphany found through viewing a poster of the Beckett abstraction. Her pining for humanities majors to be more like computer science students is a call for the humanities to embrace failure as an ideal, in the same way she idealized the computing world’s “endless road of failure.”  

This interest in good failure reaches beyond entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley; Stanford’s Carol Dweck posits her growth mindset theory as the ability to see failure as part of a natural process rather than a permanent state, and from this lens the University of Pennsylvania’s Angela Duckworth has developed metrics on grit, or the ability to persevere through failure.  These movements and ideologies have seen mainstream engagement yet stand in contrast to a history of educational literature.  It is not that educational literature devalues struggle or perseverance; there are numerous educational terms and concepts and ideologies to explain such phenomena: iterative-based learning, process, trial and error, design research, problem-based learning, etc. However, the ‘Fail Like Beckett’ discussion of failure as a positive in education ignores these theories and examples, choosing to appropriate the negative term in a positive fashion rather than using positive practices to denote the same thing.  

By foregoing established research on struggle-as-learning to rather frame the experience as failure, what are we saying about our cultural perception of education and its obstacles?  Casting the problems of education as an unwillingness to negotiate failure untethers society from its role in creating an untenable educational structure.  The problem is complex, and one not solved through self-help exercises.  Longtime educator Joe Bower has connected the rise of grit conversation to an extension of inequitable practices rather than the growth of accessible spaces for equity; grit as an historical approach to equity results in a system of rewards and punishments that focus on the individual rather than the system.  In this system, focusing on grit as an attribute hides the landscape our schools are in, where many students fail to have their basic needs met anywhere but the school walls.  Educational psychologist Alfie Kohn sees the structural focus on how students are doing rather than what they are doing as antithetical to the failure celebration; when society measures education in terms of achievement and performance how can we say we want process?  Both Bower & Kohn’s thinking is aligned with the theories of psychologist Jerome Bruner, for whom ‘successes’ and ‘failures’ are merely informative and not to be rewarded or punished.  This discussion, of how failure manifests within an educational structure, is longstanding and addresses broad root concerns of equity, access and psychology.

Where Bower, Kohn and Bruner’s arguments have failed to engage the cultural zeitgeist is in invoking the personal, the anecdotal.  And the failure motif as celebrated through tweets and updates and TED talks is highly anecdotal.  Richard Branson has dropped the Beckett mantra into speeches as if it was his own, only to later attribute to Beckett while saying, “but it could have just as easily come from the mouth of yours truly.”  The stories of Branson, of Musk, of others are of personal triumphs over personal obstacles, and we hear the story from the other side of the battle, from the space of success.  This is a spirit of meritocracy and a furthering of a self-help society, but it also is a personal reaction to the external problems of society; if people were allowed to fail rather than be coddled/helicoptered/given a trophy, things would be for everyone else like they are for me.  Rather than considering the structural or sociological elements that create inequality and struggle, the onus is put entirely on the individual or their meddling parents.  Rather than engaging the existing philosophy and science on the subject, we have misappropriated a quotation from an obscure text addressing how an inability to adequately utilize words to convey the human experience is indicative of epistemic failure.  We have turned the complexity, struggle and (dare I say) grit of Beckett’s work into a tweet-length epistle one could easily fold into a Baz Luhrmann-produced graduation speech.

There are many ways to celebrate struggle and perseverance in the education system.  And we can work to incorporate multiple modalities into reframing the educational experience, by changing and expanding the objectives and participation in education to the purview of problem-based learning as well as supported risk-taking.  Failure, however, is wholly personal; the personal nature is why Richard Branson can celebrate it, why Samuel Beckett could wallow in it, and why we should not develop a rhetoric around its positive attributes for adoption in a formal education system.

Add to the Conversation

2 Responses
  1. As someone who is working with growth mindset both for myself as a learner and in my classes also, I want to assure Rolin that it is more than just coffee mugs and motivational posters — but such motivational paraphernalia can also come in very handy as a way to connect with students. So, in response to Rolin’s article, I made a LOLCat inspired by this passage from Carol Dweck’s Mindset: “When people believe their basic qualities can be developed, failures may still hurt, but failures don’t define them. And if abilities can be expanded — if change and growth are possible — then there are still many paths to success.” You can see the LOLCat here:

    In a Twitter exchange with Rolin about this article, Rolin suggested that my students need to read more Beckett. Given that Beckett is one of the “bleakest authors on the human condition” (as Rolin describes him), I think I’ll stick with Dweck instead of Beckett. I have no interest in celebrating failure, but I very much want to free my students from their often paralyzing fear of failure; Dweck is a big help with that, and it sounds like Beckett really would not help with that much at all.

    Setting Beckett aside, I’m not sure where Rolin got the idea that Dweck is a “failure celebration.” Dweck instead emphasizes the idea of failure as feedback, separate from the labeling of smart or stupid, separate from institutionalized reward or punishment, etc. In fact, one of the things I like best about Dweck is the way that she warns of the dangers of labeling students as “smart” and the reward of “A” that ends up putting arbitrary limits on learning.

    In any case, as long as school labels student failure with “F” and puts that label on the transcript, teachers like me, who throw out grading (#TTOG), have a lot of work to do it. For me, Dweck is helping me to do that work. Rolin argues that failure is personal; I disagree. Failure should not be anything personal, but unfortunately my students take the grade of “F” very personally. I am using Dweck’s idea of a growth mindset to help them move beyond that, from failure-as-personal to failure-as-feedback. It has nothing to do with Beckett, but it does have everything to do with getting beyond grades to self-directed learning instead.

Leave a Reply

Explore Related Articles from Hybrid Pedagogy

journal logo (two nested mathematical Unity symbols in light and medium blue) above the following text: “Hybrid Pedagogy: An open-access journal of learning, teaching, and technology”

Open to Chance?

Latest Comments on Hybrid Pedagogy

Hybrid Pedagogy on Twitter

Support Our Work