I read a couple of essays that discuss the cliché concept of “Do what you love.” These were likely written for the season of commencement speeches when new graduates are showered with platitudes about how to live their lives. Both of the essays ( here and here) are critical of the notion. The idea that you should throw yourself into what you love seems to be so self-indulgent. Throw away all of the other work that exists and immerse yourself in what makes you happy. There is something compelling about the notion that finding what you love and doing it will lead to happiness all around. We will all labor happily, for it will not feel like labor at all. We will have chosen our daily activities; we will love them, and will experience work as if it were play.
Being the father of two young children, I know that play is
a wonderful thing, except for when it is time to clean up and clean up we must.
Toys strewn about are dangerous, unsightly, dirty, and are prone to being
broken, drying up (think clay, paint, and markers) and becoming unusable. Any
one of these could lead to limitation on the future experience of joy that
comes with play (the work of children, no?). This cleaning up [of crap] reminds
me of a quote I read recently that noted that man, while created in God’s
image, and in many ways divine, still shits. I searched the internet for the
quote and happened upon a related quote from one of my favorite authors, Milan
Kundera. In “The Unbearable Lightness of Being,” he wrote,
Spontaneously, without any theological training, I, a child, grasped the incompatibility of God and shit and thus came to question the basic thesis of Christian anthropology, namely that man was created in God's image. Either/or: either man was created in God's image - and has intestines! - or God lacks intestines and man is not like him.
The ancient Gnostics felt as I did at the age of five. In the second century, the Great Gnostic master Valentinus resolved the damnable dilemma by claiming that Jesus "ate and drank, but did not defecate."
Shit is a more onerous theological problem than is evil. Since God gave man freedom, we can, if need be, accept the idea that He is not responsible for man's crimes. The responsibility for shit, however, rests entirely with Him, the creator of man.
I think he meant it
as a playful indictment of the idea of God and religion, a precursor to the
liberal atheism that is very much in vogue right now. I think that it also
speaks to the idea that the world is far from perfect, a reality that is hard
to understand and accept as we suffer through life.
Ruminating on the
existence of shit and its seeming incompatibility with Godly perfection, seems
to me to miss the point of what is to be done with the shit. It exists, like it
or not, and leaving it out, like a pile of toys, has real downsides.
This is all to say
that there are real shit parts of jobs. And some jobs are pure shit. They are
thankless except for the paycheck, and even that may not make the work
worthwhile. What would Steve Jobs say to that? How to love a job that is full
of shit? Many of us might identify with such a question as few of us get to be
CEOs, screen actors, professional athletes or novelists. Few of us get to do
what we really love.
And to take the argument
of Miya Tokumitsu, by convincing ourselves that we must do what
we love, regardless of compensation, even those who end up doing what they
love, get the financial shaft. First,
there is a great deal of low wage, but essential work that is done, not out of
love, but because it is essential, like picking fruit in the hot California
sun, removing garbage from alleys in the early hours of the morning, or caring
for the terminally sick, chronically mentally ill, and elderly. We tell
ourselves that this work, while important, does not require a high level of
skill, intelligence, or training, so it is deserving of low wages. But we tell
teachers and adjunct professors and social workers, and now lawyers and
doctors, that because you are doing what you love, we should pay you a low
wage, too, and if you ask for more, you shouldn’t be doing that work because
you obviously don’t really love it. This tautology becomes the perfect crime
for the capitalists, CEOs, and college presidents who make salaries many times
more than the average worker at their respective institutions.
I think a much more realistic
perspective is to do whatever needs to get done. Doing the laundry, making your
bed, picking up the toys, cooking dinner on a Wednesday night, cleaning the
bathroom, filling out paperwork, and going to meetings, should all be done
because they need to be done. Even astronauts have to fill out reimbursement forms for their out of state travel-they are public employees after all.
We have already shown our capacity to
make much of this drudgery go by with ease (see for instance, our high levels of efficiency and productivity). We could probably do more to reduce
the bureaucracy and management culture of our labor (managers managing managers
who conduct evaluations of evaluators who evaluate the people who actually
produce the product and serve the customer). In fact, we could probably greatly reduce our work week, as the British are proposing, thus creating more jobs. This would probably have to go
along with making sure our basic needs are met through high quality accessible
schools, healthcare, and affordable healthy food. That is something that is not
really out of reach, given the embarrassment in riches we have in those areas. While also making more time to do the things
we truly love.
What does this have to do with being
Mexican? Well, Mexicans frequently bust their asses in shit work without
complaint. Somewhere between that extreme and doing what you love lies
happiness.
