The Tyranny of Becoming

 

 

“Become the best version of yourself.”

It sounds profound. It sounds liberating. It sounds like wisdom.

It is also one of the most perfectly marketable ideas of our age.

The modern self-help industry has taken an ancient human anxiety,  “Am I enough?” and turned it into an economic model.

You are not enough.

Not productive enough.
Not disciplined enough.
Not wealthy enough.
Not charismatic enough.
Not resilient enough.
Not fit enough.
Not emotionally intelligent enough.
Not successful enough.

But don't worry.

There is a solution.

Buy the book. Attend the seminar. Download the course. Hire the coach. Wake up at 5 a.m. Optimise your habits. Reprogram your mindset. Build your personal brand. Become the “best version of yourself.”

And then, having finally become that person, discover that the market has already moved the goalposts.

So, you optimise again.

The genius of contemporary capitalism is not merely that it sells us things we want.

It teaches us to experience ourselves as unfinished products.

Marx would have recognised the mechanism immediately. The commodity no longer needs to exist outside us. The commodity can be our identity, our confidence, our productivity, our relationships, our bodies, even our sense of purpose.

The self becomes a project.

And once the self becomes a project, there is an endless market for improvement.

You are simultaneously the consumer and the product.

You consume systems designed to improve yourself while transforming yourself into something increasingly legible, productive and valuable to the market.

And here Nietzsche becomes useful, although perhaps not in the way the motivational speakers imagine.

Nietzsche's idea of “self overcoming” was not a corporate productivity hack. It was not “wake up early, set goals and crush your potential.”

Self overcoming was something far more dangerous.

It meant questioning the values you had inherited.

Who told you what a successful life looks like?

Who decided that productivity is virtue?

Who decided that ambition is good?

Who decided that perpetual growth is desirable?

Who benefits when you believe that your worth must constantly be demonstrated?

The self-help guru rarely asks these questions.

Because questioning the game is commercially inconvenient when your business depends upon teaching people to play it better.

Instead, the modern guru often tells you:

Don't challenge the system. Optimise yourself for it.

If you're exhausted, become more resilient.

If you're anxious, become more disciplined.

If you're financially insecure, develop a better mindset.

If your job is meaningless, find your purpose.

If you are exploited, improve your productivity.

The structural problem becomes an individual psychological defect.

And this is where the modern language of “personal responsibility” becomes particularly seductive.

Responsibility is undoubtedly important. But taken to its extreme, it produces an extraordinarily convenient ideology:

If you are failing, you have failed to optimise yourself sufficiently.

The system disappears.

The corporation disappears.

The economic structure disappears.

Class disappears.

Power disappears.

What remains is you, staring into a mirror, wondering what is wrong with you.

And the market is standing behind you, selling you the answer.

Even leadership becomes a commodity

This is where the sentimental idea of leadership becomes interesting.

“Leadership is seeing the best in people and helping them become the best versions of themselves.”

Beautiful.

But why should an organisation do this?

Not morally. Economically.

If the answer is that developing human beings is intrinsically valuable, then we have already stepped outside the narrow logic of capitalism.

But if the answer is that developing people eventually produces higher performance, greater retention, better innovation and higher returns, then something rather different is happening.

Human development has become “instrumentalised”.

We do not necessarily develop the person because the person matters.

We develop the person because the person produces.

The language remains humanistic.

The underlying calculation remains economic.

And this is perhaps the most sophisticated form of commodification  where, even our compassion becomes productive.

Empathy becomes a leadership competency.

Purpose becomes an employee-engagement strategy.

Psychological safety becomes an organisational-performance tool.

Wellbeing becomes a retention mechanism.

Authenticity becomes a branding strategy.

Even “being human” can become a corporate capability.

And then comes the gig economy

The traditional employment relationship at least contained an implicit bargain,

“I will invest in you, and in return you will invest yourself in this organisation.”

The gig economy increasingly asks a different question:

“Why should I invest in developing you when I can simply find someone who already possesses the capability I require?”

The distinction is brutal.

The old model asks,

“What could this person become?”

The new model increasingly asks,

“What can this person already do?”

Potential becomes a liability when development takes time.

Loyalty becomes inefficient when labour can be purchased on demand.

Training becomes an unnecessary expense when expertise can be rented.

And the worker becomes less an apprentice to an institution and more an independent commodity competing in a global marketplace.

The individual is therefore told to become entrepreneurial, adaptable and endlessly employable.

In other words:

Become your own corporation.

Manage yourself.

Market yourself.

Optimise yourself.

Upskill yourself.

Brand yourself.

Monetise yourself.

And if you fail?

Improve yourself.

The capitalist corporation has moved inside the human being.

This is where Nietzsche would probably become suspicious

Because the language of self improvement can conceal a deeper question,

“Whose ideal are you trying to become?”

The “best version of yourself” sounds liberating until you ask who defines best.

More productive?

More wealthy?

More attractive?

More influential?

More employable?

More disciplined?

More socially desirable?

More commercially valuable?

If those are the criteria, then perhaps we haven't liberated the individual at all.

We have simply trained the individual to become a more efficient servant of values they never stopped to examine.

Nietzsche's challenge would therefore be much more radical than,

“Become better.”

It would be,

“Decide what ‘better’ means.”

And that is a far more dangerous question.

Because once you begin questioning the values themselves, you are no longer merely optimising the self.

You are potentially rejecting the scoreboard.

Perhaps that is the real seduction of self help

Self help promises freedom without requiring rebellion.

It tells you that you can transcend your circumstances without confronting the structures that created them.

You don't have to overthrow anything.

You just must improve yourself.

You don't have to change the system.

You just must become better at surviving it.

And perhaps that is why the industry is so enormous.

It converts dissatisfaction into consumption, insecurity into aspiration, failure into self improvement and existential anxiety into a subscription.

It gives us an endlessly renewable problem,

You are not yet who you could be.

And an endlessly renewable solution,

Buy the next thing that will help you become that person.

Marx might call this commodification.

Nietzsche might ask whether the values driving the process were ever truly yours.

And the modern self-help guru might simply call it your next growth opportunity.

That may be the most unsettling joke of all.

Perhaps the ultimate act of self overcoming is not becoming the best version of the self the market wants.

Perhaps it is having the courage to ask whether “that self is worth becoming at all”.

 

ravivarmmankkanniappan@09372209202603°09′15.69″N 101°39′30.93″E

All Rights Reserved