In 2019, Kenyan distance runner Eliud Kipchoge became the first person in history to run a marathon in under 2 hours. News of the incredible feat sparked excitement around the world, and the runner’s personal mantra of ‘No human is limited” became corporatised by Ineos, a huge company in the fuel industry.
From the Ineos Website
“His legacy may be one for the history books, but this is his chance to inspire people to do great things, even beyond sport, to challenge themselves in a way they may never have dared.
“Any human being can go beyond their limits,” he said.
“Any human being can go beyond their thoughts. But self-belief is crucial.”
“I totally believe in myself and believe in my teammates and my training.”
It is this philosophy that is shared by INEOS and an exceptional group of men and women involved in sport, which has inspired the launch of No Human is Limited.”
Whilst hugely admiring Kipchoge and others who achieve remarkable feats, the #nohumanislimited memes following his marathon troubled me. I wondered why this was, and after a period of reflection, it led me to write this short essay critiquing not him or his aspirational-inspired meme, but a wider problematic ideology that is endemic in our society, and pushed by corporate power.
The idea of having no limitations promotes a narcissistic omnipotence that has become banal, widely accepted and mundane - a part of everyday life. It creates a fantasy whereby humans can totally master themselves, master others, and continues the false narrative that is so destructive; that humans can master nature and the wider environment. Whilst Kipchoge is aiming to inspire people, I am not convinced his commercial sponsors have the same altruistic agenda when they align their brands with his achievements and his meme.
The capacity for individuals and teams to do remarkable things beyond what are considered ‘normal limits’ is admirable and uplifting. Yet ideas like ‘no humans are limited’ go beyond a single athlete trying to be aspirational. This idea has been commandeered, manipulated and reproduced to become part of a dominant ideology that speaks directly to our unconscious. We internalise the idea of having unlimited aspirations, following the social injunction ‘you can become whatever you desire’. This essay claims that these positivistic mantras paradoxically undermine us rather than empower us.
You are not master in your own house
Freud taught us ‘We are not master in our own house’ referring to our unconscious that determines much of our thinking, actions and emotions. We are ‘doubly subjected’; firstly to our conscious thoughts, desires and fears, and secondly to our unconscious dynamics which often are in tension with, and undermine our conscious desires and rational reasoning. The idea of humans having no limits has long been promoted by capitalist forces and by politicians and marketers who direct their message at our unconscious drive, one that desires unlimited pleasure (what Lacan calls Jouissance). The message ‘you can become whatever you desire’ spreads like a virus in our late capitalist culture, bringing together rampant individualism and harnessing it to consumerism. Corporations, positive psychologists, life coaches, talk-show hosts, social media memes as well as alternative and spiritual gurus all promoting the message ‘become what you desire’…. often with the additive- buying our goods/services will help you achieve your desires! Having unlimited desires that can be fulfilled is at the heart of the libidinal economy that drives consumer society.
Pleasure Principle and Reality Principle
Having no limitations relates to the Pleasure Principle which demands immediate gratification and unlimited pleasure. Freud (1915) offered two conflicting principles we all struggle with: 1. The Pleasure Principle – emanating from our deep unconscious (the ID) is the voice of no limitations, an inner voice that tells you that you deserve pleasure, and you should fulfil any desire and gain immediate gratification, without accounting for others or for limitations. 2. The Reality Principle – is in opposition to the pleasure principle and is the voice of reason based on an assessment of real-world contexts i.e. it takes account of our limits – including our mortality and aging process.
‘Pleasure Principle’ inspired mantras are commonly found in the marketing of corporate brands. Kipchoge is sponsored by corporate powerhouses such as Ineos (critiqued for their environmental record) and Nike whose ‘Just do it’ and ‘Yes you can’ are other examples of this corporate marketing that tells us we can do anything. Great sporting achievements are also great commercial opportunities when the memes align. Buy our brand and identify with being super-human without limits! Politicians learnt from this, and Obama’s successful ‘Yes we can’ campaign was both inspiring and also worried me at the time for overpromising, and leading to later widespread disillusion.
Acknowledging our limitations: deeper enjoyment, success and survival
Paradoxically acknowledging our limits is not a self-limiting exercise. It is a liberating process that opens up new possibilities for how we live, and how we engage with others and with the world.
Two core reasons stand out for us to work harder at acknowledging our limitations, individually and collectively.
1. Knowing our limitations is liberating.
Individually and collectively, to recognise our limits is liberating.
A) Focusing for success.
Recognising our limits as an individual, team or organization does not diminish our aspirations but actually helps us towards success. When we see our limitations we make better choices into where we put our energy and time i.e. we don’t chase unrealistic dreams.
B) Emancipated from relentless better and more.
Recognising limits emancipates us from the never-ending cycle of feeling we are never good enough. Constantly striving for unlimited success at work and in relationships is exhausting. Today’s paralysing social injunctions such as the ‘happiness imperative’ (Beradi 2009) condemn us to the relentless internalised pressure that produces a general feeling of dissatisfaction.
C) Improved relationships through accepting others.
Acknowledging our own limits can help us to acknowledge the limitations of others e.g. our loved ones, our colleagues and our politicians. Accepting ours and their limitations will put us more at ease with others, and make us less judgemental, better partners, family members and team players. It could also help us collectively make wiser political choices rather than voting for Messiah leaders who promise us unlimited pleasure, and can make our countries great again.
To discover and accept limitations, such as the way our bodies are, and the aging process is truly transformational. The beauty industry exploits the ‘you can be anything you want, there is no-limitation’ idea to vulnerable men and women, who are buying cosmetic surgery and drugs at unprecedented rates. To accept limitations means we can accept that our body changes, enabling us to grow old with grace, enjoying a good life rather than living a life of disappointment at our limiting and failing body.
2. Recognising limitations is vital to save the planet
Global corporations are crucial to addressing the urgent social inequalities and environmental issues we face. The first thing they must address is the madness of a no-limitations-approach commercial growth and the continuing use of carbon fuel. Ineos, alongside many other corporations, are accused of environmental greenwashing whilst claiming to be environmentally sound. No-limitations is the wrong message for these companies, as it is for us all.
We live on a planet with finite resources, a planet that has reached its limit in terms of bio-diversity destruction and climate warming. There is a limit to what humans can do to the environment and a limit to the social inequalities that are acceptable. To prevent social unrest and climate catastrophe ditching the ideology of no-limits is vital.
Conclusion
Kipchoge is a brilliant athlete who clearly works tirelessly to break records. His genuine desire to inspire others is welcomed. Yet we must retain our critical faculties when corporate sponsors use the meme of #nohumanislimited to sell their brands, and not be duped by the dominant ideology that haunts us behind this and other supposedly innocuous inspirational slogans .
The rhetoric of politicians, leaders and marketeers who seduce us by telling us we live in individual bubbles, separate from societal realities, and can be anything we want is pervasive and damaging.
No-limitations speak to our irrational selves and puts the Pleasure Principle before the Reality Principle. It creates an unsustainable world for ourselves, our organisations and our planet.
Our consumer society is premised on the Pleasure Principle. Socially constructed injunctions make demands on us from all directions; ‘be positive’, ‘attain the perfect body’, ‘get the perfect partner’, ‘be happy’ ‘be passionate about your job’, ‘buy this and fulfil your dreams’.
Imperfections and limitations are little discussed in today’s ‘just do it’ (just buy it) world. Yet at the same time, we face deep discontentment in society with rising levels of stress, depression and other mental health issues. Jean Paul Sartre famously said ‘We are condemned to be free’. Taking responsibility for our lives, for how we live, for others and for our planet means making choices based on discovering our true desires, and striving for them, whilst also acknowledging our own and others’ and the planets limitations. Balancing our aspirations and desires with the Reality Principle sets us free to be who we are, to spend time on what is attainable, and enables us to become who we can become, rather than chasing utopian fantasies.
To liberate ourselves from the constant striving for the impossible and to help reverse the excesses that have created social inequality and environmental crisis, let’s enjoy our limitations!
References
Beradi, F. (2009) The Soul at Work: From Alienation to Autonomy. New York: Semiotext(e).
Freud (1915) ‘Instincts and their Vicissitudes’ (Standard Edition, XIV, pp. 117–40)