As I am starting my senior year, something that I am constantly reminded of is finding a job and starting my career post-graduation. This summer, I started to work on case interview prep with my roommate. We spent an hour or so (sometimes more, sometimes less) each week reading consulting books and quizzing each other on market sizing, business operations, etc. questions. Prior to engaging in case prep, I thought I’d decided that I was not going to recruit this fall semester for consulting jobs. But as the summer approached its end, I started talking to my “mentors” (my colleagues and my bosses) to ask them for advice on going into consulting instead of jumping into the social enterprise field directly. The conclusion I came to was that I will not recruit this fall semester, and instead will conduct informational interviews. If by the end of the fall semester I think I might want to go into consulting, then I would recruit in the Spring.

There are many reasons why I have, for the time being, decided that I may not want to go into consulting straight out of undergrad. While those reasons are all valid and require just as much attention, I want to focus on one in particular: salary-level and financial gains.

It’s not a secret that those working in management consulting get paid a lot more than those who work at either a NGO or social enterprise. And while for the past 3 years of my life, I had been setting my mind to working within the social enterprise field, I hadn’t really and truly considered what it means to work for  a social enterprise, from a financial standpoint.

For me, part of what it boils down to is my background, upbringing, and financial stability which affects my career choices and how that would affect my lifestyle. I’ve talked about this more than once on this blog, but coming back to it — I’ve had a “fairly comfortable” (if not “overly comfortable”) life growing up… and partially I think this is also what made me realize that I need something more than “wealth” to be happy. And here, too, are multiple things going on: perhaps I think I’d be unhappy with “just wealth” because I lack the same sense of “personal achievement” that comes with wealth. And so who is to say that if I were to make something of myself in my future career and made a good amount of money, I wouldn’t be content enough with this? That’s something I cannot discount, because frankly I don’t know how I’d feel if I got to that point. But the point is that in my present state (or throughout my life) I never felt like pursuing a career that would bring in a lot of money would be enough for me, from a career standpoint.

So thus begins my pursuit of a career in social enterprise/social entrepreneurship, what I believe is a way for me to achieve that “something else” that I feel like I lack. But pursuing a career in this field means not making a lot of money, perhaps just enough for a “comfortable” lifestyle. And, to be honest, I think this is what scares me the most. The fact that I’ve grown up living a certain lifestyle, being provided by my parents, and not having to worry about money is what makes me doubt my ability to learn how to want less and how to be content with a less “extravagant” lifestyle.

And while I can say this fear/doubt of mine can be attributed to my upbringing/growing up, it can just as well be attributed to social and peer pressure. Society — American society especially – breeds a culture of excess, consumption, and materialism. We are bombarded daily with new products or new “somethings,” and are constantly reminded of how awesome it must be to be rich and wealthy.

Let’s take my recent weekend trip to Las Vegas, for instance. Vegas is perhaps the epitomes of excess, consumption, and materialism. Table service at clubs costs thousands of dollars; suites or penthouse suites can cost up to $10,000 per night (can you believe that?!); lounging at the VIP section of a pool party can easily cost $3,000 for the afternoon. While it is not that hard to “crash” these VIP places, there is a sense of “coolness” and even “superiority” to be had when we are able to sit in these places or have the “VIP” treatment. We are conditioned to think that being VIP, having bottle service, or staying in a penthouse suite is what it means to be “baller”, “high rollers”, and just plain awesome. The implication behind all of these words is that: you have made it, you are wealthy, and that is something to be looked up to (in a sense). And being surrounded by that, and to see people’s reactions to this excess/consumption/materialism (myself included), only reminds me more of how much our society idolizes what it means to be wealthy and how that is the ultimate achievement.

While I am not discrediting wealth as achievement, I think there are other forms of achievement that are often downplayed. But when we are surrounded 24/7 by this excessive, materialistic, and consumption-focused culture, I think it is difficult to train ourselves — to re-condition ourselves, in a sense — to believe that there are, in fact, different forms of achievement, and that we don’t HAVE to buy into this wealth=achievement type of thinking (even though I am not saying people cannot have this type of thinking).

Peer pressure is another way we are conditioned to believe that achievement and wealth are synonymous. As an undergrad at a business school, a good percentage of them will be recruiting for investment banking, consulting, and accounting jobs. While I don’t believe this of all of those recruiting, a good amount of them want jobs in these industries because their end-goal is to make a lot of money. And to be honest, can I blame them? Is it really so wrong for those who: 1) grew up living a comfortable or extravagant lifestyle and want to sustain that for themselves in the future OR 2) did NOT grow up wealthy and thus want that kind of lifestyle — to pursue a career that will bring in a good amount of money? No, it’s really not so wrong.

For me, I think realizing all of these factors and being surrounded by this type of “philosophy” (if I may call that) only makes it harder for me to slowly accept the financial/lifestyle consequences of pursuing what I want to pursue. I need to learn how to be OK with living “modestly”; I need to, despite the fact that my sister is pursuing a career in the fashion industry (an industry that I also am interested in, as a hobby, but also an industry that thrives on excess and wealth), not participate alongside her desire to purchase expensive designer items, because that’s her future line of work, so it would be OK for her to want that, but it’s not mine. Most of all, I need to start thinking realistically what going into this field means financially and lifestyle-wise and start accepting this and being OK with it, despite the constant reminders that “more is better and wealth=achievement.” Otherwise, I am just kidding myself and will remain sitting here, thinking up some great scheme about how I am going to participate in poverty alleviation/changing the world, allthewhile still being supported by my parents and not having any financial burden at all, until I am thrown into it and hit by the reality of what it really means to want to work in the social enterprise space.

In a previous post on “Convictions, interconnectedness, and getting out of despair,” I wrote about the conflicting rationales of Ivan’s ways of thinking and my own identification with various aspects of Ivan’s philosophy. I was troubled by Ivan’s inability to deal with his suffering and wavering convictions. I have been meaning to follow up with this post on him and my perceived analysis behind his philosophy, because the next paper I did for this existentialism class infused Nietzsche’s “passive” and “active” nihilist views and Ivan’s “convictions.” Whether or not I “correctly” read Nietzsche’s nihilist philosophy is, as always, in question, but it makes sense to me and I am glad I think I resolved this conflict in my mind… So I went back and re-read parts of my paper and am going to share some of them here now…

However, Ivan’s positing of his world as the truth is problematic: the “escape” Ivan creates is one of wavering conviction. In the progression of the novel, Ivan’s convictions come back to haunt him via the Devil in his nightmare. Ivan characterizes the Devil as his “illness…, the incarnation of…only one side of [him]…, the nastiest and stupidest of [his own thoughts]” (Dostoevsky 592). In his self-proclaimed belief of absolute nothingness, much like a passive nihilist, Ivan gets into a feeling of despair. Ivan claims everything to be “disorderly, damnable, and perhaps devil-ridden chaos” (207-208). Later on, all the worlds of God and Satan are “not proved, to [his] mind” (597). Ivan clings onto the need for proofs, rationality, and logic in order to justify his true world he has created. However, Ivan’s despair and confusion is the natural result of the “escape” that follows from the first two psychological stages of nihilism.

Ivan develops his philosophy by relying on reasoning, logic, and rationality. However, he does not realize that “the strength of knowledge does not depend on its degree of truth but… on the degree to which it has been incorporated” (The Gay Science; 169). Ivan has not incorporated his knowledge and philosophy into his character and his being. He created his beliefs through logic, on the notion that there exists nothingness and that faith in a higher being cannot and does not provide value for him. Logic and reason, however, prove faulty for the basis of “truth.”

…

What Ivan would have needed was to reach the third psychological state of nihilism. This last state begins with the realization that the reason one must invent and create a new true world is derived from one’s psychological needs (The Will to Power), just as “achieving,” “becoming,” and “aims” are psychological needs. Thus, one then concludes that one has “absolutely no right” to the truth one has created, by which one can then realize that “the reality of becoming…[is] the only reality” and there remains no reason to convince oneself that there exists a “true” world. When aim, unity, and being – the highest values – devaluate themselves, Nietzsche argues that one should become an active nihilist in order to truly grasp and take advantage of life…[Ivan] did not want to discover another world because he became obsessed with trying to find meaning and make sense of the one sun, the one world he was in.

Ivan should have embraced the realization that there is no truth by becoming a free spirit and living life dangerously. When Ivan’s god began to die – began to lose its meaning –  Ivan slipped into further despair and confusion; an active nihilist, in hearing that the old god is dead, would feel “as if a new dawn shone on [him]” and his heart would overflow with “gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation” (The Gay Science; 280). The active nihilist would view the old god’s death as a wonderful opportunity to venture out into the unknown, into the “open sea,” and embrace “what is beautiful, strange, questionable, terrible, and divine” (346).

Herein lies where, in the past 6 months (however long ago it was that I wrote this paper/took this class…) I think I’ve come to my own understanding of “life” and reconciling the seemingly “meaningless” world with an amazing, “beautiful..terrible..divine” life I am living. So this is my new sun, and while I am relishing in this “new sun” I am going to embrace the meaning I derive from it, until one day — if ever — my god/sun/meaning begins to die or devaluate itself…by which point it will be time to venture onto a new sea.

Note: This post will be making a lot of references to The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, so it may be a bit incomprehensible…and will basically be a ramble.

So I just wrote a 7-page paper on why Dostoevsky believes Ivan does not know how to deal with suffering and why Alyosha does…but I didn’t get a chance to try and figure out how this applies to my life. That’s the whole reason I’m taking this class on existentialism, isn’t it? To attempt to figure out why my so-called existentialist philosophy on the world may or may not work for me… So, I’m going to try and flesh out my thoughts here.

While I argue in my paper that Ivan does not know how to deal with suffering, and that his view on the world is problematic, I find myself identifying with the majority of Ivan’s beliefs. Here are some examples:

“the absurd is only too necessary to earth. The world stands on absurdities, and perhaps nothing would have come to pass in it without them. We know what we know! …I made up my mind long ago not to understand. If i try to understand anything, I shall be false to the fact, and I have determined to stick to the fact” (Dostoevsky 220).

“What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured?” (221)

However, a discrepancy between Ivan’s and my views is that he oscillates between claiming God exists and God does not exist; for me, God does not exist. Perhaps I don’t have a clear understanding of Ivan’s belief about God’s existence. But the fact of the matter is, he did not existentialize God the way Alyosha seemed to have been able to.

For Alyosha, the existentialization of God was the ability for him to get in touch with agape love – the Christian love of brothers, an “interestedness” in people. Through such, he is able to escape suffering and despair. I like to believe that I have “existentialized God” in the sense that the meaning others attribute to God, I’ve attributed to other things in my life. Vague, perhaps. But at the same time, how could I have ever existentialized God if I were never really exposed to it in the first place? That’s the issue with my trying to understand the philosophies of philosophical thinkers Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, and the like: that they come from a background of Christian religion (or even Western religion, at that), and that it was after they were exposed and taught it, that they attempted to reconcile such with their own existential beliefs. What am I reconciling?

I’ve had friends who wanted me to go to church and try and be exposed to Christian teachings. It’s one thing to be exposed to it — which I have, mildly, through most of my classes involving philosophy and/or English — but it’s another to attempt to learn it for your own life and own philosophy. I honestly just don’t see the need to do that, because why would I need to learn about Christian teachings only to have to reconcile those teachings and “beliefs” that I may obtain with my current views?

Anyhow, that wasn’t the point – the point is that I need to figure out what it is I’m missing – the steps between Ivan and Alyosha… Because in the novel, Ivan goes into despair and becomes crazy. I argue that it’s his logical nature and his need to rationalize everything with reason that becomes his downfall. For me, I reason things – to an extent. But then it’s like Ivan’s own quote about the absurdities. There are things on earth (and even beyond, if you’d like to believe) that we can never understand – that I can never understand. I’m trying to, which is why I even take these classes to begin with, but I know that there are always going to be aspects of our existence that are just incomprehensible and inexplicable. But I’m okay with that.

…And I think that’s what may be “bad.” Ivan was okay with it – or so he thought. His doubts and so-called “convictions” come back to haunt him and, in my reading, attribute to his downfall/craziness. I can see my similarity to Ivan: we are both so convicted in our convictions. What if that’s all we have? I always like to think that it’s enough, that it is all we have and that’s the beauty of it…Because what I believe, I so strongly believe it’s true for me, that there can be nothing else of a fundamental truth in my mind. Is it bad, to have this strong of a conviction, through reasoning?

Alyosha, on the other hand, gets in tune with this interconnectedness and “agape” love that Dostoevsky supposed believes we need to do. How do I do this, via a non-Christian context? Alyosha does it by existentializing the religious sacraments and being incarnation of God (or, rather, Dostoevsky existentalizes them..), but what would be the need for me to existentialize these sacraments if I never had them in my life to begin with?

So, somehow, I need to figure out how to get “in touch” with this interconnectedness amongst people. I don’t think it’s really socially or anything in that sense. A disconnect I can pinpoint would begin with basically the content of this post. In my lifetime, I’ve come across very few people who share similar sentiments or are even willing to discuss these types of issues with me. I think it’s difficult for me to feel “interconnected” with others in this sense when I don’t feel like I can connect with others philosophically(?). But I don’t think it’s so much that they need to have the same philosophy as I do, for what would be interesting to discuss then?, but as that few people think about these issues and question their beliefs. Again, this is probably an issue I’ve struggled with for who knows how long now, but I think the fact that I still feel this disconnect is something that should be figured out… But how??? Practically, it’s not really possible. Who has time to think about fundamental beliefs such as these. Some people don’t want to, because then it shakes the very foundations of their existence…etc.etc.

…so what is it?? I’m confusedddddddd. Obviously I’m not going to evaluate my life and philosophy exactly as how Dostoevsky pictured it, for how do we even know 100% that that was really even his philosophy? But it’s an everyday struggle (yes, I am being overly dramatic) in figuring out how we (myself include, and perhaps the human race too…and no, I am not trying to be patronizing nor all-knowing) get out of despair and find meaning in our lives, or else everything is rendered ‘pointless’ and what would be the point of that?

Note: My reading of Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov is via my professor’s (Professor Hubert Dreyfus) interpretation of the novel. The class it’s for is “Existentialism in Literature and Film.”

Also, I have written a follow-up entry to this: “Creating and discovering new suns..” as of May 8, 2010.

“He who despairs of the human condition is a coward, but he who has hope for it is a fool.“ – Albert Camus

So this quote has been on my WordPress “drafts” for quite a while now, because every time I want to write about this, I lose motivation and decide to not. But every time I come back to this draft and re-read this quote, the more I identify with it – but in opposite ways.

Some days, I’ll be the “he who despairs,” and others, I’ll be the “he who has hope.” And another day, I’ll be neither – somewhere in the middle as I think Camus intended.

It’s funny, because just last night, as I was reading through the numerous articles for my research paper on social entrepreneurship, I came across an article “Social Entrepreneurs and Catalytic Change” by Sandra A. Waddock and James E. Post, in which it discusses who a “catalytic social entrepreneur” is:

“The activities of social entrepreneurs can thus be distinguished from those of other types of public entrepreneurs by 1) the fact that social entrepreneurs are private citizens, not public servants, 2) their focus on raising public awareness of an issue of general public concern, and 3) their hope that increased public attention will result in new solutions eventually emerging…It is this latter aspect that gives rise to the term “catalytic.”

And I guess that is the one problem I have with that description. That is is the hope that may (or may not) result in new solutions.

If there’s anything I’ve discovered in my twenty years, it’s that hope is never enough. Hope can get you through the day, hope can sometimes bring about change, but it never guarantees change. This may be too tied into my own personal beliefs and philosophies, but the way I see it, one can never rely on and hope for others to change. We can try to change people, to change their beliefs and actions, but we can never guarantee it. Again, hope is never enough.

My too-demanding nature often leads to disappointment, because in every way (both on a personal and more global) level, I want that “hope” directed into reality. And so in reading this article, I would conclude that I disagree. If anything, a catalytic social entrepreneur must not hope that public awareness will bring about change: they must guarantee it and be the ones to bring about this change.

Now, is that too much to ask? Am I, too, being too hopeful? Here we go, a classic case of Rosalind-contradicting-herself. I don’t know – you tell me.

More recently than probably the last two years, I’ve become more cynical, more pessimistic once again toward “human nature” or specifically toward politics and existing injustices. I can never reconcile in my mind the fact that injustices will always exist but the fact that they are, as term itself states, unjust. And it’s not enough for me to want to change these injustices (i.e. my desperate – ha – and determined drive to break into social entrepreneurship and somehow succeed) at my present state and time, while instead of learning actual stuff I wished I were learning, I am instead reading other material I find irrelevant. It definitely doesn’t help, either, to be once again reminded of the “politics IS money” perspective which I realized I’ve tried to ignore. It’s one thing to realize this, but it’s another to have to constantly confront it and be okay (or NOT okay, both lead to the same results) with it.

I do know that “little things” count, and that small grassroots movements add up to become huge revolutions. But I’m still waiting for that. And, in a way, I guess I gave up. I lost faith in the “public” grassroots-movement-model and instead am turning to another sector for answers. Am I just too impatient? Do I need to try and stick it through? Am I really just wasting my time?

God, what does it all mean anyway?? What’s the point of it all? I hate my brain sometimes.