The Good-Enough Life by Avram Alpert — A Reader’s Dialogue

When I first picked up The Good-Enough Life, I thought it would primarily be a self-help book, focused on scaling back from a high paced life and learning how to be happy with less. I was pleasantly surprised that this book had more of sociological bent, asking how a good-enough perspective would benefit people on the individual and societal level, affecting our relationships to each other and the natural world. The book argues for a paradigm shift, moving away from a greatness-oriented culture to a good-enough oriented culture.

Much like the opening of the book, it is important here to properly define the terms. “In this distinction, ‘great’ refers to those who have power and significance in determining the course of many human lives, while ‘good’ refers to those who act with ethics and dignity. (13–14)” This is, I think, a broad definition on both counts, and personally, I’m not sure whether ‘great’ or ‘good’ are the exact terms to apply to those themes. My inner Nietzsche wants us to move beyond the word, ‘good,’ and I feel as though I was being asked by the book to apply meaning to those words that I wouldn’t normally apply.

I don’t think that Alpert used the term, ‘great man theory’ (the idea that great men shape history, imprinted their values and actions on the world around them), but it feels like his definition of greatness is draws upon that theory. His good-enough definition is more about collective action and the opportunity to pursue creative, personal interests. Overall, the purpose of the book is to push back against societal energy which seeks to promote ‘great’ people at the expense of the people in the lower and middle class. Personally, I found the book most interesting and persuasive in its critique of greatness, rather than its promotion of the good-enough.

“While one individual may very well be both great and good, however, the general system of greatness is detrimental to creating a world that is good-enough for all. (14)”

And a bit later:

“Can an ethical system that promotes being the best be part of the movement for equality of opportunity? Quite simply no, because any society with an aristocracy will inevitably enable that aristocracy to give its children tremendous advantages. (59)”

It is amazing though how Alpert does create a framework for how to look at the world and how to better live one’s life. I think of this section about how parents can teach their kids about living a good-enough life:

“They learn that ordinary pleasures matter, that cooperation is difficult and fundamental, that joy and tragedy are copartners in existence, that we need to be creative and adaptable because the path is not always set out for us, that we need to learn to appreciate people who have different gifts and virtues, that success at math or writing or piano-playing is but one metric of human accomplishment … (108)”

And there are many recommendations throughout the book which can be applied to different ways to life. It really is the sharing of a perspective rather than clear calls of actions, which shows the book’s ambition. It asks us to change the way we look at the world.

However, I think the truly interesting aspect of this book is that it is absolutely filled with interesting ideas and provides illustrative examples to make those ideas clear. Whether it be about how prestige generates further prestige (the Matthew effect), the Progress Trap, or even Walter Benjamin’s thoughts on storytelling, there are so many fantastic small ideas throughout the book. However, I also felt like the ideas, each of which could have been their own book, are not expanded enough here, and sometimes did not feel directly connected to Alpert’s ideas of the good-enough life. I loved reading about the ideas, and their implications, but it didn’t always feel cohesive.

And on that note, most of the core concepts of the ‘good-enough life’ didn’t feel wholly original. I had felt like I had come across most of those core ideas previously, especially as someone interested in mediation and Buddhism. In fact, the concepts seem more original and engaging here because they have been repacked under the good-enough framework. And while the delivery is interesting, and I am sure will draw other readers in, I felt like I was retreading old ground.

Thinking back to books I’ve read, such as Jenny Odell’s How to do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy, Katherine May’s Wintering: The Power of Rest and Retreat in Difficult Times, or Gabor Maté & Daniel Maté’s The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness and Healing in a Toxic Culture, I think The Good-Enough Life both adds to the literature, but also doesn’t exactly stand out, despite the strength of its framework.