The problem with the "unconquered" soul ideal

Recently the school where I teach has launched an initiative to put emphasis on developing “grit” in students. (Yes, I know this is about 10 years behind the curve, but bear with me here. There’s a reason Mark Twain wanted to be here at the end of the world). As part of this initiative, and to tie faith development to the push, an alumnus and board member began writing and producing as videos with the help of some staff, a number of sermons built around the idea that what we want students to become is an “unconquerable soul,” a phrase taken from William Henley’s 19th century poem “Invictus”. The “unconquerable soul” is in many ways an admirable image -- a spirit unbowed in the face of tremendous odds -- the sort of heroic stoicism that many of us fantasize about possessing. It’s the imagined state of so many of our heroes and martyrs, especially in the Catholic tradition of lurid ends faced by those who would not renounce their religion in the face of evil forces requiring capitulation. It’s even part of that imagined “sanctified by suffering” perspective applied to the victims of the Holocaust, regardless of their other foibles or humanities. Who doesn’t want to imagine themselves on that solitary pinnacle of self-possession against the most daunting odds? Hell, it’s even, arguably, the trope we pursue when we battle in a video game (my recent experiences with Super Smash Brothers come to mind). And I suppose there’s nothing much wrong with it as something to teach children to aspire to. We want our kids to be unbowed, to come out on top, to conquer the world….oh. There it is. To conquer the world, the flip side of being unconquerable ourselves. In a world that insists so stridently on the dialectic in thinking, in the bifurcation of gender identities and the polarization of positions in all things from sports to politics, it ought to be understood that to be unconquerable is to conquer. Now, you might say that all that’s being conquered in this scenario is fear and self-doubt, and you may be right. But there is another perspective that I think this whole approach neglects, either purposefully or accidentally, that has potential for real harm. In the “unconquerable soul” scenario, the focus is wholly on the individual -- bravely battling against a world full of dirty adversaries, whether they be unfavorable financial circumstances, unfair work or housing situations, personal cruelty or unjust treatment. It’s a lone wolf relying on their inner resources (we should read faith here) to overcome personal challenges and come out on top. While this makes for great movie plots, it really doesn’t reflect the reality of living in a society composed of other beings presumably engaged in their own heroic battles. We run the risk of selling the message that if it’s possible to be one of these “unconquered souls” then anyone who is “conquered” is somehow a lesser human, perhaps deserving of any fate that befalls them. Is that really what the example of Jesus calls us to? It’s a comfortable position for sure, because we can always pity those who are less than, we can always be magnanimous toward them out of our abundant kindness, but we are not going to be inconvenienced by any need to identify with them, to address the injustices that they have battled “unsuccessfully” or to make, indeed, any kind of change to the status quo of the world around us. It’s the ultimate feel-good playbook if it’s presented as “the true path” to seeking students. It can be used to justify feelings of superiority -- even in the aggregate ("my ancestors persevered and look at me today"). It can be used to justify authoritarianism (only unconquerable souls are worthy of leadership or respect) and it does not encourage any examination of systemic flaws, inadequacies or injustices. It looks at the long arc of history and says, “Well, everybody had to overcome something, so I guess you just have to put up with second class citizen status or a greater chance of being impacted by public health concerns, or whatever.” It’s a simple solution in an unutterably complex world. Yes, hold on. I can hear the defenses of “grit” gearing up already. Of course we want kids to see that they must not, of necessity, be ruled or defined solely by their challenges. Of course we want them to persevere in the face of difficulties in all aspects of life. But if we value empathy as a trait of Christ to emulate, we need to develop that by acknowledging, exploring and questioning where those challenges and circumstances that they and their fellow students must “battle” stem from in the first place. Are they mysterious and inevitable? Or can they be identified, challenged and changed for the better? Certainly this “grit” mindset and the idea of “unconquered souls” don’t have to preclude that exploration and acknowledgement of the origin of difficulties, but without explicit effort to show how we can be “unconquered” together, in solidarity with those not in our faith-group, our economic status, our ethnic heritage, our gender identity, our political positions, this ideal becomes just window dressing for apathy around the problems of the world. It’s a virtuous screen for the selfish short sightedness that comes from years of denying that systems might have embedded in their makeup rules, laws, even mores which render those systems inequitable and racist, sexist, and homophobic.