In order to determine exactly what is meant by ‘failing at life’, it’s necessary to determine who is calling the failure. The experience of failure is one that is not easily quantifiable because of the subjective nature of the feeling that results from not attaining personal goals. It is also pertinent to say that motivation, by and large, is twofold; to improve one’s life and self-perception, and to improve the way that others perceive them. In this balancing act, some may not be able to achieve full self-actualization, but, will invariably by continuing with and dedicating themselves to their goals achieve something of merit whether it is perceived by others as an accomplishment or not.
The perception of others, though having an impact on the self, is not a perception of the self. This is demonstrable in two specific ways. First, the person who is setting a goal is doing so for personal motives in order to improve the quality of their lives. Second, the person is attempting to represent an image through these goals that they are in control of their lives to others that will perceive them. Thereby, they are in either of these actions acting on their own behalf to achieve something they believe will elevate the quality of their lives. Achieving this process, according to Maslow, is through the achievement of the hierarchy of needs. First the individual seeks out the basic needs of the existence of the human organism; such as food, water, shelter, etc. Once basic needs are met, the person is able to seek out the social needs, sexual needs and emotional connection to other people. Their place in society is achieved through the fulfillment of all needs being sufficiently filled and then the person is able to become reasonably satisfied with their lives and begin to help others along the way to achieving their needs as well. There are many psychological theories on motivation, but, one theme tends to tie them all together; and that is that needs are hierarchical. The ability to fulfill specific needs before attaining higher level needs is corequisite to any personal goals set.
We cannot argue that in our modern societies, achieving certain ends is not as simple as we would like it to be. In order to be able to have sufficient food, water, shelter, electricity and technology, we must have a stable base of wages. In order to have a stable base of wages that can supply all of our basic needs and maintain a comfortable lifestyle, often this requires shelter, technology and technical and intellectual ability that may not be freely available for each and every human being. Along with the technical know-how, there are physical barriers that a small percentage, but yet still sizeable number of people must overcome in order to achieve the same level of ability of their more mobile counterparts. Already, we see that there is a discrepancy between what the individual may want and what they are given access to achieving. The limitation is one that is fully integrated into our social landscape; for example, attempt if you will to recall an instance where either yourself, or another person have interacted with a homeless person and this homeless individual requests change, only to be told to “go get a job”. This is the perfect, everyday example of social stratification. Here, we have a person that may not be a wealthy individual, they may not necessarily live in luxury or have all the needs that they require to make it through the day; however, more often than not, the individual speaking down to the person living on the street is housed. They are more often than not also employed, and most importantly, have family ties or some other form of support network that would support them if ever they were subject to the possibility of becoming homeless. Conversely, the homeless individual is, of course, without shelter. Because they are without shelter, they will have a great deal of trouble attempting to seek employment. They may, also, be without family or friends that are able or willing to help them in their current situation. To add more injury to injury, all of this is overlooking the statistics that a large portion of chronic homeless are also deinstitutionalized people with mild to severe mental illness. The housed individual is often well aware of the situation of the person without shelter; but they still choose to decry the homeless individual. Why? Because of a common sentiment that all people are equal and have the same opportunities. However idealistic this would be, there is a very important oversight: though having opportunities presented, it is not always the case that all people have the same start-point.
In effect, the ability of people to meet their needs and achieve their goals is subject to a more intricate set of problems than a mere excuse or shirking of responsibility. There are no mechanisms by which a person can immediately become housed, financially stable, follow a set amount of steps and be content with their lives that could be made available to every single person on the planet whenever necessary. There is always the capacity for improvement; there are always small strides that can be taken. But, to have it declared that a life has been wasted and that a person is a failure is to deny that possibility altogether. It requires a consistent effort, a diligent pursuit by the person to move beyond each barrier that is presented and a great deal of self-awareness to improve circumstances. But, yet again, there is a substantial oversight in this individualistic view of human existence, because, there are socioeconomic barriers embedded in our society that play a big role in whether or not a person is able to achieve their goals or not. Statistics and studies speak for themselves, in North America, Aboriginal peoples, people of African descent, single mothers, Latino communities and many other marginalized people have been historically and are still faced with much more difficulty in meeting their needs and wants versus the white, middle-aged, heterosexual male.
