Sometimes I still feel like interacting with children all day is making me less sharp. Yet playing a part in civilizing small barbarians to respect each others property and treat each other kindly is, in a way, a lot more satisfying than fact-checking a chapter for some brilliant scholar's new book.
When I look back at my teaching experiences through my emotional lens, I can't help but feel the same way. There are few people out there who stay apprised of the minutia of education policy and even fewer who actually can stake out a coherent, relevant, set of positions as to what should be done. Contrast that with seeing a student understand what multiplication is or smile when the lightbulb goes off in their head about how to write a concluding sentence for their paragraph. These and many other things were incredibly gratifying. But...
I don't usually use my emotions when I look at things. I try to maintain a healthy skepticism about just about everything I encounter. Sometimes this is helpful. Sometimes I come off like an ass. Here goes my attempt at something in between the two.
People tend to want their work/lives to be meaningful. It's a natural thing to do and is perfectly legitimate. But this does not mean that one job is objectively superior to the other, just that for those individuals it might be more personally satisfying. Similarly, I don't understand the whole profit vs. nonprofit vs. government argument. Each sector has different things it does (hopefully) and I know of people in every sector who are either extremely happy and excited to come into work every day or downright miserable and feel as though they'd contribute more to society if they just stayed in bed when they wake up. In my mind, the key is to figure out what kind of work makes you feel like you are making a positive contribution and not to be dogmatic about which sector you work in to accomplish that work.
I once was at a forum where Michelle Rhee was speaking and someone asked about whether the DC Public Schools should only work with non-profits to provide services in the district. Her response - "First, let's be clear about something. There are a lot of people out there making money off of children." My sentiments exactly. Unless you are volunteering, the only difference in someone's work is the approach and specific outcomes that are desired. The basic idea is still the same; create value for your organization which, in turn, creates value for society. This is my non-romantic version of why I get up in the morning and I'm sticking to it...for now.
Posts
2 comments:
You know me well, you know that I don’t live my life at full emotional tilt, but I recognize the value of my emotions and would feel less like me without them informing decisions every day.
Some thoughts...
The fact that you "try to maintain a healthy skepticism" means that you are in fact carbon-based (shock) and react emotionally to things first. The mere effort that you exert to remove those emotions shows that you are denying your natural response to situation. Your relegation of emotional-based behavior to second-rate is dangerous. Emotional reactions to things are usually based on your own experiences with people, situations, etc. If you want to avoid bringing the lessons you’ve learned into a situation because it might read as too emotional, then you’re choosing to face each situation as a blank slate, which puts you at a disadvantage from the rest of the population. Rather than avoid emotion all together, you should recognize that it’s ok to include emotion in your reasoning, but also recognize that emotion alone is the wrong way to go about finding a solution. You need a good mix of the two.
Also, I think it's interesting that you classify your goal to “create value” as a non-romantic reason for getting up in the morning. The idea of “value” is subjective in this situation. You believe your work is creating value, therefore you do it. Your belief, or some might say passion (which incidentally is a listed synonym for romantic), that your work creates value motivates you. If that’s not romantic, I’m not really sure how you’re defining the word.
Finally, and I touched on this in the first paragraph, but it bears repeating, your relegation of emotional-based behavior to second-rate is dangerous. Keeping yourself emotionally distant in life is easier than getting heavily involved. It’s true for causes, politics, relationships, etc. You don’t want to care about a big issue, whether social, economic, or political, too much because you might feel helpless and unable to affect change on a grand scale, and following your logic, what’s the point of expending that energy? I would counter by reminding you that you expend equal, if not more, energy trying not to care, so wouldn’t it be easier to just go with your instincts?
Caring too much about a relationship leaves you vulnerable to things beyond your control, which can also bring on that helpless feeling. Your choosing emotional distance keeps you safe in a number of ways, but I find life is much richer when lived at a full emotional scale. You know yourself better. You recognize what you can and can’t handle on your own because you know both the objective and emotional sides of yourself equally well. I take self-awareness and self-confidence over the rest of it any day.
Thanks for the shout out Raph. Your comments are very interesting.
Post a Comment