though most americans want change, scarcely anyone dares to publicly say so. in a 1999 survey for the environmental protection agency, american l.i.v.e.s. found that 79 percent of americans agree with the strongest possible position favoring changing our way of life to aid ecological sustainability (ray 140). likewise, a 1995 study consisting of a national survey and a series of focus group discussions found that a large majority of our country believes “materialism, greed and selfishness increasingly dominate american life, crowding out a more meaningful set of values centered on family, responsibility, and community” (the harwood group). still, we don't talk about this; as one everyday american notes, "we’re allowed to talk about the wrong things in our culture. we’re silent about the things that matter the deepest to us. we’re public about our hairdos, clothing, cars, and that stuff. i think it ought to be reversed” (ray 56). i agree, and so do others. according to futurist robert nelson, "we have no theory to guide us. whether it’s in economics or health care or education, confusion is growing. it's not yet visible enough in most places to be a clear signal, but one of the ways i read it is in the general cynicism of society. i think most of us know about this turmoil, and we’re afraid to talk about it. in a sense, we’ve got a funny kind of open secret, where we all know that we’ve got some very hard moral, intellectual, spiritual homework to do together, but nobody wants to say so” (ray 56).
only by saying so, however, can culture really change. the one problem with cultural creatives, for example, is that they are not public about their particular lifestyles and values. as ray and anderson explain, "cultural creatives are a coherent subculture – except for one essential thing: they are missing self-awareness as a whole people; most of them think that their worldview, values, lifestyle, and goals for the future are shared by one or a few of their friends. they have not yet formed a sense of 'us' as a collective identity" (39). amid mainstream society, cultural creatives often feel very alone -- very alienated. as one explains, “from where I sit now, i see that it’s the culture itself that wraps us in so tight. it’s the culture that keeps our eyes screwed shut. not just in terms of what we should and shouldn’t do – the things we learn as we grow up. it’s more than that. it’s what we should and shouldn’t question, should and shouldn’t long for, should and shouldn’t imagine" (ray 93). because of the blinding mainstream culture, those who still succeed in envisioning and actualizing a better american lifestyle often must do so on their own.
this is an ongoing issue, especially for young people. many authors point out that high school and college students lack role models, guidance, and encouragement of any valuable sort. instead, according to david brooks, they are left to fend against consumerist culture's "achievement machine," which tells them to work a lot and to think little. while students often impress brooks with their diligence, he laments their severe lack of creativity -- even in regards to their own lives! in his words,
what would be wrong with imagining something truly big? "i have a mission to help create a world in which all nations are democratic; or "i have a mission to help create a world in which there is no cancer"; or "I have a mission to help create a world in which there is no starvation"... each is an incorruptible dream that would redeem the normal material efforts that inevitably occupy many of our everyday hours. none can be achieved within a single lifetime so each connects its bearer with the flow of history and the lives of those yet to be born... yet envisioning such a mission -- thinking creatively about what you should devote your life to, exploring the range of missions that are out there, measuring which mission is highest, and which is best suited to your talents -- is an ambitious and unrealistic activity virtually ignored by the vast achievement machine. they are too grand and pretentious and unprofessional. the paradox of modern american life, especially in regard to the young, is that while it seems driven by ambition, its citizens are not ambitious enough. (185)
we're timid about considering and pursuing what we really want -- in fact, we hardly know what that is. while we value the individual, we ironically neglect to give it real, critical attention. instead, we allow contemporary culture to convince us that as long as we follow its rules, we're great and life is grand. this works well enough until post-graduation, a time now commonly called "the quarter-life crisis." abby wilner, who coined the phrase, describes it as a period of anxiety, uncertainty and inner turmoil that often accompanies the transition to adulthood (robbins 3). as wilner and her co-author alexandra robbins explain, "in the academic environment, goals were clear-cut and the ways to achieve them were mapped out distinctly... but after graduation, the pathways blur... in that crazy, wild nexus that people like to call the 'real world,' there is no definitive way to get from point A to point B, regardless of whether the points are related to a career, financial situation, home, or social life" (3). only now, after decades of supposed learning, do people seriously begin to engage existential questions: who am i? what am i doing? is it meaningful? such questions often cause confusion. because no one talks about having doubts at this age, however, many quarter-lifers think something is wrong with them for continually questioning themselves (10). thus, they stay silent, static, and dissatisfied.
this tolerance for dissatisfaction, however, is equally confusing. why, as david brooks points out, are people afraid to pursue -- let alone contemplate -- what they really want? why they're really alive? apparently, twenty-somethings -- and presumingly adults as well -- seriously struggle to get past the immediate, fear-inducing question: what if i fail? (68). for many, it's safest to subscribe to society's idea of material success. arguably, however, this is running the real risk -- the risk of dehumanizing our very selves to a point of thingness.
humans are not inanimate objects designed for a menial and mindless existence. we do have discontents, and we do have desires -- but few of us are willing to talk and act from them. still, david wann claims,
"if i were to ask you what you want out of life, i can guess what you'd say. you want less stress than you have now, and more laughter. you want a greater sense of control over how you spend your time, including fewer everyday details like security codes, telephone calls to be made, and endless consumer choices (which health insurance? which sunscreen? which mutual fund?). you want more energy and vitality, and fewer 'worn out' days. you want the people in your life to really understand and care about you -- people who you love and respect. you want activities and passions that foster creativity and self-expression; a sense that your life has meaning and purpose." (27)
wann's answer is fair enough, but it's utterly unfair that this question rarely, if ever, gets asked. "what do you really want out of life? let's think and talk about it. let's figure this out together. i'll help you to help yourself -- to see that positive change is always possible." i've never heard such words; that's the problem. part of the solution, however, is that i just said them myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment