The Silence of the I Am

The Fisher King

In the Grail mythos, there is a king who cannot rule. Wounded by a sacred spear—some say the one that pierced the side of Jesus—he sits fishing in a river near the Grail castle. In many of the myths it is the king’s groin that has been injured, implying his generativity has been vitiated. The injury will not heal. He carries chronic and intolerable pain.

Most know the wounded interrex as the Fisher King. The name is a confession. He does not rule, nor inspire. He sits and waits for fish to bite. They do not. He appears to have decided this is all he can do.

You have found yourself reading The Subjunctive. It is free to subscribe and it is foretold that those who do have great fortune.

His wound cannot be reduced to its physical nature. It has stricken something in his soul. His ability to be what he is has been suspended. While he remains sovereign in letter, in spirit he has yielded the throne to despair. Whether he regrets this is not made clear, but we want to assume. We can feel the tragedy of his decision.

Around him, the Fisher King’s realm is continually failing. It is called the Waste Land. His infirmity has leaked into that which he was enjoined to lead. He lives inside a strange paradox in which he knows his charge is failing and yet by doing nothing, his position remains in stasis. Growth is dead, but collapse—he hopes—might be withheld indefinitely.

The dominion of the Fisher King is a dark allegory for the intrusion of the unknown into the ordinary world. It is not so much a place as it is a revelation. It appears suddenly to incidental heroes who do not know they are seeking it. Paths to it cannot be retraced. It holds objects that are less relics than apertures between disparate worlds. Its rituals are conduits for arcane gnosis exceeding the understanding of those who witness them.

When a hero happens upon the kingdom, the first thing exposed is the king himself, although not obviously so. The hero, tired of travel and disoriented by uncharted land, comes upon the king at the river, taking him perhaps for an aged mendicant. The hero asks where he might find lodging or a meal and is given only simple directions.

At evenfall, with the received guidance, the hero comes to the Grail castle. Here he finds a gathering court. He is told it happens each night. The assembled hush. An acolyte emerges, carrying an eternally bleeding spear. A maiden bears the Grail itself, its superluminal glow an intimation of vitality. The people celebrate and then depart. The king is nowhere present. Somehow, the hero knows these rites once sustained the life of the kingdom, and yet the land now lies waste. The order continues with perfect fidelity. No one can say why the rituals persist.

Outside the castle, the Fisher King waits to be brought to his bedchamber, his apathy withdrawing further inward. He is lost to himself and his realm. The ritual concludes, the hall is dark. All of this appears to the hero as protocol. He wonders if it might be theater. This is a place, he ruefully assesses, where nothing ever happens. Yet the rituals never cease.

A Hollow Liturgy

The undoing of the Fisher King’s demesne does not lie in its rituals, its functions, its operation. The practice of these activities continues as it always has. What has vanished is the vitality they once mediated. The land—the experience of the realm—is increasingly moribund. The purpose that once animated the rites has gone missing. They are “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” And yet, they persist.

This condition is not unique to the story. Ritual possesses curious durability. Once established, it can continue long after its raison d’être has withdrawn from the stage. Religions retain liturgies even when faith has receded. Political orders preserve ceremony when no power remains to inform it. Organizations repeat procedures whose purpose no one can remember. The spirit departs. The forms remain.

Contemporary institutions produce their own liturgies. These gather around procedures, standards, frameworks, certifications, compliance regimes, performance reviews, quality systems. The rites they demand are generally performed with extraordinary fidelity. They promise a bulwark to protect excellence. Yet the excellence they were created to preserve is visible precisely nowhere. The experience at their interfaces is increasingly collapsed into empty process observances that satisfy no one.

The evidence for this hollowing is not difficult to find. A small but telling measure is the National Customer Rage Survey, which has tracked consumer anger since 1976. Incidents of “serious customer rage” have more than doubled since the turn of the millennium. The experience of dealing with our institutions increasingly produces fury. One possible explanation is the measurable shift of effort from the institution to the customer. Increasingly, customers are asked to do the work institutions once performed themselves.

Perhaps even more probative regarding our collective rage is the stultifying sameness that appears to us in every industry. What differentiates airlines? Or running shoes? Or mobile carriers? Naught but for superficial brand claims crafted by glib marketers. We can only be confident that should we seek customer service, we shall find the experience insufferably annoying.

This is not a product of randomness. What is visible here is something deeper about the template upon which modern institutions compose themselves. The reasons these structures exist—and the obligations they impose—are rarely articulated beyond legal necessity.

Over time, what goes missing from how we formulate purpose for our institutions becomes an unbearable weight. The entropy of the system begins to exceed the work it performs. The missing piece presents as experiential, embodied, irrational, resistant to modeling. Its mantra is “it can be done.”

In the Waste Land, it cannot be done. The resolve to act has been arrested by something larger. Leadership has become inscribed by the tragedy of what has been lost.

What has been lost is excellence.

A Brief History of Excellence

Before we can see how excellence has been lost, we must first understand what it once meant. It has not always conveyed the vague gestural meaning we now attach to it. For most of human history, it signified something precise and demanding. Its trajectory was understood to be unbounded. No amount of excellence was the final word. Any new instance of excellence might exceed all that had come before it.

To lay hold of this older meaning, we may first consult the Ancient Greek concept of aretē (ἀρετή). For the Ancient Greeks, aretē could be applied to anything. A horse might possess aretē in swiftness. A blade in cutting cleanly. A physician in healing. A speaker in the force of their rhetoric.

Aretē was the fullest realization of the nature of a thing. It was not measured by reputation, technique, or adherence to procedure. A thing was excellent if it realized its nature—its purpose—at the highest level possible. It was the unremitting pursuit of that fulfillment, always available but never fully consummated. It could be recognized when it appeared, but it could never be guaranteed in advance.

Excellence was personal. It was unequal: some could achieve it, most could not. It was an aspiration. It was recognized as dangerous and required ambition and the acceptance of risk, and even loss. Achilles sought excellence. Odysseus did as well. There was no procedure to guarantee it. It arose from essence and effort.

Aristotle would give philosophical clarity to what the Greeks already understood intuitively. In the Nicomachean Ethics, he held that the excellence of a thing is found in the fulfillment of its function. Architecture is excellent when it is sturdy and beautiful. A human, when he lives in accordance with reason and virtue. For Aristotle, excellence was neither ornament nor reputation. He saw it as the condition in which a being performed its nature at the highest level available to it.

What Aristotle did not anticipate was that excellence might be reduced to rules. He argued that excellence required judgment. He called this phronesis (φρόνησις), or practical wisdom. No instruction set could produce it. Virtue could be cultivated, and habits could be formed, but excellence itself remained available only through character and discernment. It could be studied, encouraged, even admired. What it could not be is guaranteed.

For centuries, this understanding endured. Excellence was expressed through the warrior who fought bravely, the craftsman whose work surpassed that of his peers, the statesman whose judgment preserved the polis. It became intelligible through action, and it was affirmed by recognition. Masters judged apprentices. Citizens judged leaders. Excellence persisted as a living thing. It remained visible in deeds and inseparable from the person exhibiting it. It was recognized when it appeared, but it resisted any attempt to bring it to heel. Excellence would not be made predictable.

This irregularity of excellence made it difficult for societies to tolerate. It appeared unevenly. It could not be reliably promised. Some individuals achieved it while others could not. It resisted instruction and could not be produced on demand. Excellence might appear in individual deeds, but no institution could summon it at will. It could be admired, but it could not be programmed.

As societies grew in size and complexity, the irreducible nature of excellence became a significant problem. Cities needed administration. Trade insisted upon dependability. Institutions found they could not rely on the sporadic appearance of exceptional individuals. These institutions were seeking something more stable. What had once been a living expression of action gradually began to assume a different form. Excellence became no longer merely something recognized; it became progressively something to be described, codified, and taught.

In the classical world, the domestication of excellence began subtly. Philosophers described the virtues. Teachers and guilds provided training according to established practices. Where excellence had been judged through the singularity of an act, it was becoming continually more associated with familiar and legible method. While something like excellence remained as the goal, we had begun to demand it must be achieved through repeatable process.

As societies attempted to stabilize excellence in this way, they came to know an even more fundamental challenge. Method can be taught, but excellence still defied every attempt to ensure its manifestation. A master might train an apprentice, but he could not warrant his charge would realize greatness. Achievement stubbornly resisted formalization.

Yet the effort was not abandoned. A tacit wager was made in which the guarantee of excellence was exchanged for its approximation. The precedence we chose placed the simulation of what we wanted over its proper instantiation. If we couldn’t have excellence when and where we needed it, we reasoned, we can replace it with a more reliable facsimile. That something essential might be lost in the transubstantiation of the thing to the idea was a cost we deemed smaller than the value of reproducible consistency.

Growing with the scale of civilization, the impulse to reliability began to produce new tools. Standards appeared, and their instruction made systematic. To avoid the uncertainty of archaic excellence, it was being replaced by methods designed to reproduce measurable results. The aim was not to eliminate excellence but to render it docile. We needed excellence to reduce its dependence on the character of the inconstant individual.

As the scale of our systems expanded, industrial societies demonstrated an even greater intolerance for inefficiency. The availability of master craftsmen began to collapse at scale. Factories necessitated consistency. Managerial bureaucracies demanded legibility. Work that had depended upon the judgement of masters (known so for their excellence) was being reorganized as instructions anyone could follow.

At first these systems were cast as friends to excellence. They would transmit knowledge and technique. They could protect against catastrophic failure. They wished to be seen as inspired vision for progress. Even so, this effort helped secure the shift in practice to excellence as something accountable and well-behaved. Whether something was classically excellent now mattered less than whether it met the standard.

This practical shift gave rise to a new concept: quality. Unlike excellence, quality could be specified. This could be done before systems are built or even designed. Quality could be measured, documented, certified, recorded, rewarded, reproduced. Whereas excellence entailed judgment, quality commanded compliance. No longer bound by the indeterminacy of singular achievement, quality promised to give us what we want, assured through the adherence to procedure.

This transformation was not born of folly. Institutions did not abandon excellence out of ignorance, but necessity. Excellence could not be relied upon. Systems required stability. Still, quality does not produce excellence. It produces the appearance that excellence is no longer required.

The residue of the transformation now governs most of modern institutional life. Quality assurance systems, certification regimes, compliance frameworks, and performance standards all promise to safeguard excellence by mandating adherence to protocols. All will be proceduralized. All will be measured. All will be documented. When expressed through extraordinary action, excellence will be registered as disruption. Its present expression is a completed checklist.

The Leadership Simulator

Leaders were the first to absorb the effects of this inversion. Classical excellence distinguished the leader from the administrator. This was one of the essential functions of excellence. Modern institutions prefer systems that are not beholden to exceptional individuals. This disposition has deracinated leadership, consigning it to processes designed to quantify and tame judgment. Actual judgment is too inconstant and irreducible for the deterministic impatience of our age.

The result has been the replacement of leadership with its simulation. Quality masquerading as excellence is made manifest through a system of practices. Competency models define acceptable behaviors. Performance metrics are compliance scoreboards. Certifications are merit badges. Leadership development programs are rehearsals, not for the discharge of authority, but for its performance. Each element implicitly promises to produce capable leaders while the enterprise quietly erodes recognition of the messy and unpredictable character of true leadership.

Stark as the appraisal may seem, leaders are no longer expected to embody excellence in either judgment or action. Instead, leadership is tasked with maintaining the processes through which acceptable outcomes are produced. This removes everything personal—and human—from leadership, replacing it with a formally defined algorithm. The leader—or anyone else—is no longer expected to generate excellence. We have become components in the machine that simulates it.

Because it is neither reliable nor scalable, excellence is no longer an engineering goal for the systems that organize our efforts. Attempts to realize classical excellence are received as unnecessary and likely unwelcome. This poses a structural trap for leaders. Even highly capable leaders find themselves under growing pressure to operate inside a simulation they did not build. Contemporary leaders were not the architects of this arrangement, yet they are left to hold the practical debt.

The urgent task for leaders is clarity about what has been lost. The purpose that calls leadership into existence is not reducible to procedure. When leaders are asked to assume responsibility for outcomes they are not permitted to control, they must not falter. Leadership must be able to recognize and respond to the corpse in the room.

Those who sense this condition face a peculiar demand. They are obligated to execute a set of institutional rites whose authority no one dares question. The ceremonies have multiplied. The absolutions they offer grow increasingly fantastic. Participation is compulsory even when we do not understand.

Contemporary leaders must therefore preside over systems whose legitimacy lies outside the purview of leadership. Being an excellent leader is thus reduced to being a compliant one. Metrics must be reported. Leaders must denounce what they are told must be denounced. Declarations of alignment must be recited. Leaders must pay deference to the holy objects: the dashboard, the standards, the audits. In these, leaders are told, is contained the generative force that animates our institutions.

What these genuflections ultimately secure is not what we once called excellence. What we now seek is reassurance. With each passing iteration, our pursuit of measurable quality grows increasingly mechanical. These pursuits provide evidence that what is proper has been done and nothing dangerously irregular has occurred. Leaders soon learn there is no prudence in challenging this catechism. To do so is disloyalty. These rituals must continue, even when what they summon has long since withdrawn.

The Waste Land

Present-day leaders find themselves in precisely the world presided over by the Fisher King, because they are he. The wound is the exhaustion of the paradigm in which we live. The generative force that once animated our institutions has receded from view. Yet the offices remain, and the rituals continue in their discharge. Leadership has been reduced to managing procedures whose purposes few can recall.

In the Grail romances, the Grail mediates the generativity of the kingdom. It is the source through which life flows into the land. When the king is wounded and the Grail’s power withdraws, the kingdom does not collapse immediately. The court still assembles. The rites are still performed. But the land slowly grows barren and the villagers enraged.

It is thus with our own institutions. The rituals of quality are executed with perfect fidelity. Reports are filed. Metrics are recorded. Standards are maintained. Yet the generative force that once produced excellence no longer moves through the system. Leadership has become the stewardship of procedures in a kingdom whose vitality has receded.

The path out of the Waste Land is not more ritual. It is not more theater. It is the deliberate maintenance of unrealized possibilities that can reclaim excellence. It is rescue of the subjunctive reserve that keeps the light of the Grail from fading entirely.

But for now, the king remains at the river. Daily, the court still gathers. The land lies waste.

And the rites continue.

It is possible you’ve arrived at The Subjunctive by happy accident. If you also accidentally subscribe, you may also be happy.