Too Much Love

As you know, I am no fan of contemporary society in most respects, and have spent a good deal of time trying to figure out what its main flaw is. Recently, though, a commencement speaker hit on a point which I think explains a lot of the craziness going on today. See what you think.

I refer in this case to a WSJ article by Carl McCoy, who lambasts a lot of the advice regularly offered to college graduates this time of year. You know the drill: shoot for the stars, discover yourself, fifty-three other shallow platitudes, and in this particular instance, "do what you love." McCoy takes real issue with this phrase. There's nothing wrong with trying to find a career in something you enjoy, he points out; but it's a serious mistake to think that you can always pursue such enjoyment and make good money from it and flatter yourself that what you're doing is just as important as anyone else's job. As the writer puts it:

Some will soon go on to better jobs, but many will stay in [their] 'day jobs' for years, waiting for their big break, waiting to be discovered--or simply waiting to find out what exactly it is that they truly love....As someone who has tried living as a starving artist, I can attest that there's nothing romantic or noble about being impoverished in pursuit of doing what you love.

He suggests that college graduates reverse the process, finding a line of work they're capable at and then feeling a sense of purpose and accomplishment from that, rather than finding something they love first.

Good advice, I think. But then, I like seeing meaningless catchphrases get dissected and debunked like that. More importantly, this has a lot to say about conservatism versus liberalism in general.

Despite the many turns it has taken, liberalism has always had a strong element of self-expressionism within it, especially when directed against bourgeois society, aka "The Man." Being in touch with one's emotions and personal fulfillment was just as important to, say, Rousseau in the 18th century as it is to New Ager hippies today. Yes, the Left is very collectivist, but in this respect it's also radically individualist: A liberal, especially a young liberal, has a strong urge to reject any traditional obligations to family or society, with the expectation that someone else (i.e., the state) will come in to pick up the tab.

Contrast this with conservatism. A healthy degree of individualism can be found on the Right, of course. But rather than egotism, it encourages channeling one's personal ambitions and energies into activities that increase the common good and the well-being of society in general. This is one reason why conservatives are often so unfriendly toward posturing "artistes"--it's just hard to see what they're doing as necessary to the functioning of that society.

Anyway, broadly speaking, this clash of personal prescriptions is what's going on the WSJ article I began with. While not completely ruling out personal passion, McCoy definitely places "constructive" occupations like medicine or teaching above others which, though not useless, involve a high degree of self-love.

This point isn't too fleshed out, of course, and there's a lot of wiggle room. But it does kind of get at the fundamental difference between the essentially emotional basis of liberalism and the more practical nature of conservatism. And it applies to other aspects of our culture as well. In particular, this emphasis on personal expression and such is, in my opinion, a lot of what drives the current obsession with self-esteem and, in turn, the anti-bullying witch hunts. There are lots of other things also going on, naturally; this is just one lens through which to view things. But I do think it's an important one.

Any thoughts?