The Politics of Mediocrity & How We Beautify our Chains.

We often speak of change, growth and transformation like we truly reckon the gravity of what we communicate.

We desire advancement but rarely pause to accurately define what advancement really is.

We seek out a next-level but in truth, what borders what we call next-level?

Our constant pursuit for success is fueled by what exactly?

Are we running towards something, away from something or simply WITHIN something?

We want transformation. Or so we say. But most of the time what we want is simply optimized comfort. That is, to function at the highest level but within specific constraints. It’s like being better within the model you claim to want out of.

This is often what we define as success –> the pursuit of “better” which is simply a re-arrangement of the current. It’s like knowing you need to relocate but choose to renovate the interior of your home instead.

Think of how we claim to want change but become averse when it finally shows up. You want healthy love but push a potential partner away because they feel “too much.” You say you want to break free from toxic patterns, yet find yourself drawn to the very dynamics you claim to despise because they offer the comfort of predictability. You say you want success but the version you pursue is simply high enough to make you impressive but low enough to contain full expression.

The devil we know feels safer than the angel we don’t. So we settle but it doesn’t look like settling because it’s decorated to look like grit, productivity, hustle and brilliance. It’s even applauded and celebrated.

I mean, how can you hold the idea of your sheer mediocrity when, compared to your environment you are a walking poster of excellence?

How can you confront the possibility of averageness when the system you play within benchmarks against you?

And this is the problem. We define our ascension—albeit unconscious—in comparison to what exists. We participate in our own smallness to make it look more noble and aestheticize our obvious averageness because we think it looks like not being “good enough” whereas, it can look like being the best.

That’s the politics of mediocrity. It thrives on relative comparison where you measure yourself against the shallow pool you stand in as opposed to the ocean you avoid.

Here’s the idea though, so my thoughts on this are not mistaken for peer to peer comparison or simply upgrading the context of such relativity. Far from that.

The idea is this: mediocrity is not about being “worse” or even better than others. It’s about living beneath the demands of your own potential, while the system conveniently rewards you enough to keeep you comfortable. The system here isn’t just external but also internal. . .because what parts of you want the containment and why?

But we know. We know when we are functioning below true potential. We know when our function, though impressive to others is an insult to our true capacity. We know when the weight of who we truly are and what we’re truly capable of beckon on us for witnessing.

We know this and we try many times to simply re-decorate our ambition with pursuits that serve as emblems of brilliance. So we are applauded, celebrated and praised but deep down we recognize we have excellently organized our lives around our mediocrity.

We cannot fool ourselves with the applause, we just learn to make peace with its paradox.

Now, my goal with this essay isn’t to advocate for higher performance in the context of how we know it today. It isn’t to propel you to do more or go after bigger goals. Rather, it is to hold the idea of what you define as performance and what you pursue as evidences of such. To hold it enough to see. . .because movement can be mediocrity when it’s anchored on anything other than the truth of your identity and capacity.

The question I’m asking in this essay is simple: why do we consent to this? Why do we willfully organize our lives around mediocrity? Why do we feel comfortable beautifying our chains? Why do we accept to be celebrated for a version of us that’s less than true?

And finally, what and how have we defined mediocrity?

My goal isn’t answers, just perspective in hope that you pick up your own definition and ideals in pursuit of your own life goal.

In truth, mediocrity would look different for every person. Your areas of containment may be my areas of expression. It’s never one size fits all.

However, the condition of our society is so designed that celebrated excellence becomes systems of control. In that, it is designed to funnel human potential into channels that serve existing power structures rather than genius —which is both external and internal.

Not that this is wrong. We must reward excellence whether the excellent is mediocre or not. We must reward excellence whether it’s forged from internal alignment or not. But what we must not accept is the self-domestication of averageness where we plateau because we’ve hit a mark by a standard that was set by another.

This essay challenges the internal adoption of that definition as personal law. Therefore, mediocrity here isn’t a function of output but the friction between being and doing. It isn’t about what we fail to do but the gap between who we are, what we recognize in ourselves and what we do. Mediocrity is a condition of internal containment - it is choosing to inhabit a form of excellence and performance that leaves you internally untouched.

This is how we come into seasons where despite the knowledge we are so laden with. . .despite the visible markers of potential we have, it feels disembodied. Often, it is the internal acknowledgement of negotiating between the actual coordinates of your current level of genius mastery and your defined functions. . .between known potential and executed competence. . .between what is done and what could have been done. . .

Because potential isn’t something you achieve. It’s something you reckon. And mediocrity is the suspension of that reckoning — regardless of what is celebrated or applauded.

Therefore, mediocrity is not deficit of output. In fact, it can look like volume, grit and movement. It is the betrayal of your depth, truth and capacity.

If 10 is the standard but your capacity and wisdom is 50, what becomes excellence to you? That’s the friction.

Does this mean you must wage war with external systems of measuring mastery? No. They exist, they function, and they will continue to reward, applaud, and shape behavior. That is not the enemy. The enemy is the abdication of the self within that framework.

Hence, we must constantly insist on mastering our genius even though the metrics that would define its outward expression stands low compared to its weight. The outward is for humanity, the inward is for you. This is why no matter how much we invest in what we do outwardly even with a sense of duty, if we feel betrayed internally, then, we become miserable.

It’s ironic. You can be an exemplar to others and a stranger to yourself at the same time.

So, I need you to ask yourself -

And as you wrestle with that, do note that mediocrity isn’t simply in terms of visible performance. It can also be seen in your unwillingness to wrestle with your own ideas for the safety it provides. It can be seen in the acceptance of shallow definitions as personality markers where growth is necessary.

Of course, there is more. But are you willing to go there?

Willing to reimagine what more looks like for you?

Even I still battle with my own chains. Let’s emancipate ourselves and insist on being.

Share your thoughts with me.

And if you find it good, do share this essay with someone else.

- Faith Ohio.

Unlocking Genius in People, Systems & Ideas

Creator, The Genius Arc™️ Framework