I recently came across an article that sparked some thought-provoking reflections. It starts with a simple yet striking analogy: the humble ham and cheese sandwich. “Is it the best food in the world? Certainly not. The worst? Definitely not,” the piece declares. It’s an unoffensive choice, yet one that rarely inspires enthusiasm. It’s dependable, functional, and unremarkable—a symbol of mediocrity in its most palatable form.
The author uses this analogy to frame a broader critique of modern society. According to the piece, we live in what could be called a “dictatorship of mediocrity,” where the average has stopped being a benchmark for comparison and has become the imposed standard. Philosopher Alain Deneault, author of Mediocracy: The Politics of the Extreme Centre, suggests that this widespread celebration of mediocrity has dulled society’s edge. It fosters complacency, stifles creativity, and discourages questioning what ought to be questioned.
Deneault provides vivid examples to illustrate this: teachers dissuaded from challenging rigid curriculums, employees punished for displaying moral courage in shareholder-driven corporations, and journalists compromising investigative integrity for sensational, click-driven content. In politics, he laments the dominance of “extreme centrism,” where bold ideas and moral convictions are smoothed over to maintain a conflict-free status quo.
This phenomenon mirrors the “Peter Principle,” a theory that posits individuals in hierarchical organizations are promoted until they reach their level of incompetence. Mediocrity flourishes because it avoids risk, disruption, and innovation—qualities that often unsettle established systems. By rewarding conformity over creativity, institutions prioritize the comfort of the predictable over the challenges of the exceptional.
Daniel Innerarity, a professor of political philosophy, adds another layer to this critique. He notes that while society tends to penalize disruption, it can counterbalance this by fostering spaces where exceptionalism is nurtured. He invokes the image of the court jester—a truth-teller unafraid to speak honestly to power—as a vital figure in pushing back against mediocracy’s numbing effects.
The roots of this systemic mediocracy, as Deneault traces them, lie in the industrial revolution. This era marked the shift from professions defined by craftsmanship to jobs standardized for mass efficiency. Individuals were reframed as “human resources,” valued for their utility rather than their unique potential. In this framework, survival within the system often overshadows the pursuit of purpose or excellence.
Deneault is careful to distinguish mediocrity from outright incompetence. Mediocrity often comes wrapped in a veneer of polished competence: diligent, servile, and devoid of originality or conviction. Ironically, it is precisely these traits that make mediocrity appealing to those in power, as it doesn’t challenge the status quo.
A provocative question arises: has mediocrity become more prevalent? Deneault argues that while the concept once carried a dismissive connotation, it has now been institutionalized. In the past, mediocrity was criticized by elites wary of rising middle classes. Today, it is incentivized and woven into the fabric of society.
This article serves as a wake-up call to reevaluate the systems we participate in and the standards we accept. It challenges us to resist settling for “good enough” and instead strive for excellence—whether in politics, education, or our daily lives. Overcoming mediocracy requires courage, creativity, and a renewed commitment to the pursuit of what truly matters.
Leave a Reply