Dear bosses,
What is the purpose of work? I suspect that this is something you learn not to ask yourself when you have a 9 to 5. But I’m a slow learner, always have been. Just look at how long it took me to do what I’m doing now (which is quitting, by the way).
Is a job just a job? Is just being able to work, to earn money and produce goods or a service an end goal in itself? Or is there something to be said for loving what you do? Or, and this isn’t necessarily the same thing, in following your dreams, or pursuing artistic goals? How happy vs. miserable do you have to be to just need to leave, to move on? What is the parallel–if any–of that last question to the whole frog in boiling water scenario that has of late been obsessing me, you might say, while I’ve been plunked in my office chair for 8 hours a day?
I’m not sure. I’m only 24, and these are tough nuts even for people with decades of experience in the Working World. For the past two years I’ve treated these WW nuts–the big questions about Work as a Concept–as I would have treated any big question in college: that is, as a philosophical conundrum. (By the way, thanks again for hiring an English/philosophy student–way to buck the national trend and stun my scientist parents.) Now, for the first time and in the family tradition, I’m treating them as the roots of a testable hypothesis.
I grew up in a household where there wasn’t much talk about loving what you do. You worked because you were a productive member of society. (I’m not sure that that specific phrase was ever used, but definitely there was the sentiment of: If able, Then work. A priori.) You did not like your job every day, or every week. Not all jobs were created equal, but the difference between any two jobs was dwarfed by the comparatively galactic difference between any job and no job.
It’s funny, considering the emphasis they placed on the WW, that my parents always supported my writing and my acting–pretty unsustainable activities, both–even when artistic inclinations started to shape my direction in university and then in my career goals. (It may be related to the fact that they were both raised in California, where there seems to be kind of a higher acceptable threshold for non-work-centric lifestyles, and for talk turning to leisure, artistic or even spiritual activities. And this was the 60s, no less, when they were raised. I can see why they moved out east to raise kids). I suspect they trusted their parenting and my ability to find work despite my self-imposed handicap, though probably not in my chosen fields.
There was never any question about my getting a job right out of college. It was less a lesson in supporting myself–that lesson never needed to be stated explicitly, as it was well understood from 18 years of experiential lessons in the Mauk household–than a drive wholly ingrained in my psychology. Like a bird’s migratory instinct, my brain’s job-drive shuttled me from interview to interview without much conscious thought, my head was still warm from May’s mortarboard.
At the time I didn’t even think to question that drive. I don’t know that the “unexamined life is not worth living” thing was totally lost on me, but it did strike me as a little selfish in light of my family’s emphasis on the Protestant work ethic. And come on, am I about to listen to a man who sat around chatting up guys his whole adult life, not lifting a finger even to bother writing any of it down, and who would rather kill himself than give up his cushy, largely oppression-free lifestyle? Why Plato would want to work for a guy like that I’ll never know. And anyway, I think a new college grad entering the job market for the first time has a finely tuned awareness of his own ignorance, thank you very much.
Now–and this is the part that might surprise you–it didn’t take long for me to learn that this job wasn’t for me. A couple months, tops. Actually, that’s unfair. It wasn’t even the job itself. Its duties and responsibilities–writing, editing, being published on the regular and having a fair bit of creative control, thanks to the small size of our publishing company–were more interesting and rewarding than those of just about any of my peers in the field.
Rather, it was the whole world of white-collar ennui, once kind of a mirthful stereotype in my head, a Dilbert/Office Space figure of fun. I hated becoming that sad jester, and I hated more the triteness of it, the understood but unstated despair of every twentysomething at the table during a staff meeting, and the feeling that this was so shared a sentiment that it could not be talked about, was instead the undercurrent of every conversation, regardless of ostensible topic. Then the feeling that I had to believe that this was shared, this despair, that it was universal and universally suppressed, because otherwise it meant that I was the odd man out, the one unfit for duty. What worse disappointment for my parents than for them to discover I was not, in fact, a productive member of society, and therefore was under no causal conditional requirement to work.
I have a couple theories about this needy generation that itches for more–more recognition, more handholding, more control–one of which I call the Refrigerator Syndrome. (As in, as a toddler, your art on it, praised, regardless of quality or intent to please.) I don’t know. I only know that I felt immense relief when, on telling my peers of my intent to quit (at long, long last, after many false starts and cowardly retreats), the response was a kind of projected elation. Of congratulations felt wholeheartedly, not because I was moving on to some great new thing but because I was leaving this thing, the WW, behind. And plus an envy that was admitted by them, just as I had, in the past, admitted my own envy to those who had similarly left the WW to have a go at something else.
Which brings me to testable hypotheses. These are pretty easy to state now that I am quitting, though they had been difficult to nail down beforehand. They are the positive answers to questions like: Can I support myself with my own talent, rather than with my obedience and constancy to an employer? Do I, in fact, have those talents I have long professed to have, or if not have at least have practiced in the hopes of one day having? Is a life in pursuit of a nonstandard sort of work tenable in any kind of real-world, financial sense, for me, a guy who doesn’t know much about it one way or the other? And, perhaps most importantly, is my happiness in work tied to the nature of that work, or I am I flawed in some societal way that would break my poor mother’s heart? Will working toward becoming a writer make work, if not effortless, enjoyable? Will working as a barista in a local cafe fill some dearth I’ve developed from lack of manual labor and of making something physical?
Here, analytic philosophizing provides some easy answers. Sitting in an office chair for 8 exhausting hours a day, it’s easy to say yes, yes, were I but free of these shackles, these bonds of Dilbert that weigh down my artistic, talented soul! It’s easy to reason out an ego-massaging answer that doesn’t risk anything. But that’s not the way my parents raised me–parents who, for all their silent examples of work for work’s sake, were nevertheless scientists at heart, with the scientist’s even more deeply ingrained notion of curiosity for curiosity’s sake–and if I do fail in this, I will explain to them that failure, too, is a natural part of the experimental life (which, incidentally, is the only kind worth living).
Sincerely,
Ben