Sex in the City is hugely popular among women between the ages of 17 to 45. It is owing to this series that we learned about Manalo Blahniks, Jimmy Choos, and Badgley Mischka. And somehow, this show, with is focus on fashion is about sex and therefore heterosexual relationships from the point-of-view of the modern urban woman.
The problem with Sex in the City is that it has given women notions of how to be—among themselves and with a man. The show fails to factor in the likelihood that most men do not care what brand of shoe the woman he favours romantically is wearing. He doesn’t care if she’s showing up for their date in Philip Lim or JCrew or something homemade. These women claim to desire a monogamous, committed romantic relationship with a man, but other than peacocking, what are they doing to get it?
The Sex in the City woman pursues the latest bag or the most desirable pair of stilettos, kidding herself into believing that the potential mate will home in on it and find her. Really, what she is seeking by seeking out the Jimmy Choos is the approval of other women, well, women like her, anyway (and possibly her gay male friends, or Steven Cojucaru, if ever they were to run into him). In this way, the approval of the other women takes precedence over the approval of a potential hetero love partner. The Sex in the City woman, therefore, unwittingly settles for approval over love, and flattery over generosity (of self).
If approval from other Sex in the City women is what she desires most, then perhaps -- deep down -- she doesn’t really want true love to begin with. If she doesn’t want the true exclusive union with a love partner it’s perhaps because she is afraid it entails surrender, becoming vulnerable to harm and hurt feelings. She would love for a man – or anyone -- to love her, but she doesn’t trust man enough to really love him back. She must have been hurt before. So she turns to Manalo Blahniks, which have become for her a symbol of power, over her own self and her feelings. This power gives her the sense that she, and no man, has power over her heart, that she has complete governance of it.
She thinks her Manalo Blahniks are transmitting the message to a potential mate that she is independent and doesn’t need him to provide her with security, comfort, and material trappings because she has taken care of that herself. However, what it really tells him is that her preoccupation is with her vanity, and therefore ego. If she is egoistic, then her energies are directed toward feeding the ego, and therefore she is incapable of generosity of self to others.
The Sex in the City woman fails to realize that it’s in surrendering her heart that she finds it. She must not try to exert control over it, but rather let it control or guide her. There is more security in the power and wisdom of one’s heart than there is in her head, her ability to reason. It is the most secure, because the heart is the source of one’s truest self, which is divine. Once she has allowed her heart to drive her to true love, then she can buy those Christian Louboutins. But by then, she may not even want them.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Artist's Laziness
To be an artist is to be lazy. This laziness is borne, in part, from fear, fear of producing something worthless, invisible, unlikable, bad, or even worse, mediocre. But I think that this laziness to produce also comes from one’s lack of any kind of instruction manual on how to be an artist. The normative guide book to living seemed to have been inscribed on the tablets of our souls: most of us have entered this world believing that to earn a living is optimal human modus operandi, and that all the things that follow from earning, is the goal. Living, i.e. being, is much easier when we have manual to refer to and precedents to emulate.
I suppose the way to overcome this laziness is to cultivate one’s sense of himself as something other than a doer, but instead as a creator. How things would change for us once we think of ourselves as First Creator, as primum mobile, prime mover of… who knows what? And that’s the beauty of it: and then there was art.
And the only way to cultivate one’s sense of himself as creator is just to create and to keep creating.
I suppose the way to overcome this laziness is to cultivate one’s sense of himself as something other than a doer, but instead as a creator. How things would change for us once we think of ourselves as First Creator, as primum mobile, prime mover of… who knows what? And that’s the beauty of it: and then there was art.
And the only way to cultivate one’s sense of himself as creator is just to create and to keep creating.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Flattery as sloth and therefore aggression
I am reminded recently of a quote I had read as a young adult, fresh out of high school, and listening religiously to the Indigo Girls for lessons on how to approach the path before me. I’m an obsessive reader of album liner notes: in the liner notes of one Indigo Girls album is printed a quote by Marge Piercy. I have never really been able to get into her work, and at the time, at the age of 19, the quote struck me as trite. Today, I get it: “High energy doesn’t mean ‘fast’. High energy has to do with heart.”
Is it possible to vest heart into each of the numerous activities we fill our schedules with? If we’re moving so fast we can hardly think – and I mean contemplate – until we are too exhausted to enjoy the fruits of our labor, is there room for heart?
When we’re furiously busy working, or stacking our c.v.s, or simply ‘keeping busy’, we sometimes employ words to serve as surrogate for actual feelings. We take cues from society on modes of affectionate behavior, such as paying another a compliment, then crank up the volume. Flattering is often confused for complimenting; they are not the same. Flattery always superfluous: High energy, as Marge Piercy puts it, has to do with heart. What we lack in heart, we will make up with words, cheap ones and too many of them. It’s slothful. In this way, we can see that it’s actually a form of aggression. It’s not possible for one to be human and indifferent. We can only be either loving or aggressing. There is no in-between. For the flatterer, words have come to mean more that action; they have forgotten that words signify reality and that it’s the mere words that are the substance.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the flatterer is unloving and loathing. Rather it means that the flatterer is riddled with doubt, doubts about meaning, the meaning of things, “things” such as people and deeds. And because people and deeds are contingent to Life, they have doubts of the meaning of Life, therefore. They have lost faith in meaningfulness. And Love is the only meaning.
Is it possible to vest heart into each of the numerous activities we fill our schedules with? If we’re moving so fast we can hardly think – and I mean contemplate – until we are too exhausted to enjoy the fruits of our labor, is there room for heart?
When we’re furiously busy working, or stacking our c.v.s, or simply ‘keeping busy’, we sometimes employ words to serve as surrogate for actual feelings. We take cues from society on modes of affectionate behavior, such as paying another a compliment, then crank up the volume. Flattering is often confused for complimenting; they are not the same. Flattery always superfluous: High energy, as Marge Piercy puts it, has to do with heart. What we lack in heart, we will make up with words, cheap ones and too many of them. It’s slothful. In this way, we can see that it’s actually a form of aggression. It’s not possible for one to be human and indifferent. We can only be either loving or aggressing. There is no in-between. For the flatterer, words have come to mean more that action; they have forgotten that words signify reality and that it’s the mere words that are the substance.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the flatterer is unloving and loathing. Rather it means that the flatterer is riddled with doubt, doubts about meaning, the meaning of things, “things” such as people and deeds. And because people and deeds are contingent to Life, they have doubts of the meaning of Life, therefore. They have lost faith in meaningfulness. And Love is the only meaning.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Approval Does Not Equal Love: Remembering We are Mirrors
What good does it do to disapprove of someone’s wrongdoing? How does the offender gain anything – knowledge, understanding, etc. – from it? How does society benefit from our disapproval of wrongdoing? How humanity?When we disapprove of someone for a wrongdoing we are effectively setting ourselves apart from this person, disassociating ourselves from him and everything he seems to represent, ie. infidelity, dishonesty, criminality, evil, anger, etc. The consequence of setting ourselves apart from one another is, well, only that we’ve set ourselves apart from one another. It makes us less whole, less unified, and therefore, less human.
Approval is not love because love is not convenient. Convenience-in-love is borne out of ego. To choose to only love the ‘do-gooder’ over the ‘wrong-doer’ serves only ourselves. It is more convenient for us to approve of the ‘do-gooder’ because it boosts our image and gives us a sense of relief that we’re not counted among the ‘wrong-doers’. The realm of Approval (and Disapproval) is a precarious one, because contingent to Approval are conditions, terms for the relationship. And you never know where these conditions come from. Approval doesn't encourage bad behaviour. Nor does disapproval discourage it. It only classifies us (as ‘good’) and does nothing for the other.
Compassion is more than a feeling, it serves a function. This ability to feel what another feels – the torment, the isolation, the fear, the loneliness, the despondence – reminds us of our own humanity, with all its imperfections and its frailties. In this way, they help us to know ourselves more, to remember our humanity. We are equipped with Imagination for this reason among many. It’s easy to say that we aren’t able to know what’s running through a person’s mind when they do something wrong. If we were able to know the mind of evil then there must be something wrong with us, right? We might reveal ourselves to be less-than-good, right? Fear is fear. Sorrow is sorrow. Loneliness is loneliness. Doubt is doubt. The sources, the causes and the effects may vary with every situation, but the pure feelings themselves are universal.
Compassion enables us to see ourselves in them. Meanwhile, it enables them to see themselves in us, thus reminding them of 'the good' and their humanity as well, therefore. Herein lies the hope for redemption.
The more we are able to love them, the more we are able to love ourselves. The more we are able to love ourselves the more we are able to love others. The converse of this is also true: Disapproval is the absence of compassion and therefore love. The more we withhold love from others the more we withhold it from ourselves. This is because love is an energy that needs to circulate in order to sustain itself (in this world). This allows us to love them more, and loving them more enables us to love ourselves more too.
Approval is not love because love is not convenient. Convenience-in-love is borne out of ego. To choose to only love the ‘do-gooder’ over the ‘wrong-doer’ serves only ourselves. It is more convenient for us to approve of the ‘do-gooder’ because it boosts our image and gives us a sense of relief that we’re not counted among the ‘wrong-doers’. The realm of Approval (and Disapproval) is a precarious one, because contingent to Approval are conditions, terms for the relationship. And you never know where these conditions come from. Approval doesn't encourage bad behaviour. Nor does disapproval discourage it. It only classifies us (as ‘good’) and does nothing for the other.
Compassion is more than a feeling, it serves a function. This ability to feel what another feels – the torment, the isolation, the fear, the loneliness, the despondence – reminds us of our own humanity, with all its imperfections and its frailties. In this way, they help us to know ourselves more, to remember our humanity. We are equipped with Imagination for this reason among many. It’s easy to say that we aren’t able to know what’s running through a person’s mind when they do something wrong. If we were able to know the mind of evil then there must be something wrong with us, right? We might reveal ourselves to be less-than-good, right? Fear is fear. Sorrow is sorrow. Loneliness is loneliness. Doubt is doubt. The sources, the causes and the effects may vary with every situation, but the pure feelings themselves are universal.
Compassion enables us to see ourselves in them. Meanwhile, it enables them to see themselves in us, thus reminding them of 'the good' and their humanity as well, therefore. Herein lies the hope for redemption.
The more we are able to love them, the more we are able to love ourselves. The more we are able to love ourselves the more we are able to love others. The converse of this is also true: Disapproval is the absence of compassion and therefore love. The more we withhold love from others the more we withhold it from ourselves. This is because love is an energy that needs to circulate in order to sustain itself (in this world). This allows us to love them more, and loving them more enables us to love ourselves more too.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Ruthlessness
Who is Tiger Woods, really? We think we know. Tiger himself seemed to know too.
He’s the best golf player in the history of the game, a legend in his own time. He has dominated in the sport, leaving any competition so far behind him, making him one of the wealthiest people in the world. He found love with a wife and had children. He seemed to be living the dream and inspiring others along the way. So, how is it possible that he might not have been completely self-actualized? He seemed to be living the life he was born to live.
No one can know better than oneself whom the he was born to be. And one can be most knowledgeable in this than in any other subject under the sun. It is in merely the pursuit this knowledge that one can come to know satisfaction.
The recent event of his car crash and revelations of his infidelity to his family has clued us in to the possibility that Tiger is not satisfied. In what is becoming increasingly revealed as insatiable extra-marital activity Tiger seemed to attempt to fill an emptiness that was, in some subtle and persistent way, gnawing at, or even tormenting, him. This is what any of us would do, whether we choose drugs, sex, success, money or material goods for 'filler'. We would desperately attempt to fill the void with these things in the hope that it will anaesthetize the pain of loneliness, of loss. It's when we've giving up on ever finding ourselves that we will recklessly lose ourselves in something else. As regular, anonymous, non-billionaire folk, we could be appalled that he should take his successes for granted. That he'd be willing to gamble all of his 'earnings' so haphazardly and on petty whims. Geez, we think, couldn't he have tried a little harder to control himself?
Tiger's infidelity was an act of loathing: his ruthlessness, an expression of loathing for his lack of self-satisfaction. When we are ruthless, we are unreasonably judging, unforgiving, and critical of ourselves, first. On others, second. Ruthlessness is blind, powerful, indiscriminating. Although the loathing is directed at the self by the self, others (from family to fans) are unavoidably offended by virtue of their feeling of connection to him. Tiger's infidelity is literally a lack-of-faith, a lack of faith in the love he has with his wife. However, his lack of faith in his marriage is yet an extension of a deep-seeded lack of faith in himself. The self, as he has come to know it, has let him down. It has failed to bring him ultimate satisfaction. He may not be able to explain exactly why golf stardom hasn't done it for him, and certainly, we would be even less capable of doing so. Tiger sought these extra-marital women because he felt lonely, sure... lonely for himself.
It's impossible for talented people to be talented in only one thing. (I think Marguerite Duras once said something to that effect.) Therefore it’s possible for them to excel in any number of things and reap the rewards. But among those things, which is it that makes the person most satisfied? What gives him the greatest feelings of self-satisfaction? What is that thing that stirs his soul, makes him feel most alive? As humans, the ability to ask ourselves these questions is our divine right... to freedom. Tiger never had the chance to ask himself these questions: we cannot be satisfied if we are not free.
He’s the best golf player in the history of the game, a legend in his own time. He has dominated in the sport, leaving any competition so far behind him, making him one of the wealthiest people in the world. He found love with a wife and had children. He seemed to be living the dream and inspiring others along the way. So, how is it possible that he might not have been completely self-actualized? He seemed to be living the life he was born to live.
No one can know better than oneself whom the he was born to be. And one can be most knowledgeable in this than in any other subject under the sun. It is in merely the pursuit this knowledge that one can come to know satisfaction.
The recent event of his car crash and revelations of his infidelity to his family has clued us in to the possibility that Tiger is not satisfied. In what is becoming increasingly revealed as insatiable extra-marital activity Tiger seemed to attempt to fill an emptiness that was, in some subtle and persistent way, gnawing at, or even tormenting, him. This is what any of us would do, whether we choose drugs, sex, success, money or material goods for 'filler'. We would desperately attempt to fill the void with these things in the hope that it will anaesthetize the pain of loneliness, of loss. It's when we've giving up on ever finding ourselves that we will recklessly lose ourselves in something else. As regular, anonymous, non-billionaire folk, we could be appalled that he should take his successes for granted. That he'd be willing to gamble all of his 'earnings' so haphazardly and on petty whims. Geez, we think, couldn't he have tried a little harder to control himself?
Tiger's infidelity was an act of loathing: his ruthlessness, an expression of loathing for his lack of self-satisfaction. When we are ruthless, we are unreasonably judging, unforgiving, and critical of ourselves, first. On others, second. Ruthlessness is blind, powerful, indiscriminating. Although the loathing is directed at the self by the self, others (from family to fans) are unavoidably offended by virtue of their feeling of connection to him. Tiger's infidelity is literally a lack-of-faith, a lack of faith in the love he has with his wife. However, his lack of faith in his marriage is yet an extension of a deep-seeded lack of faith in himself. The self, as he has come to know it, has let him down. It has failed to bring him ultimate satisfaction. He may not be able to explain exactly why golf stardom hasn't done it for him, and certainly, we would be even less capable of doing so. Tiger sought these extra-marital women because he felt lonely, sure... lonely for himself.
It's impossible for talented people to be talented in only one thing. (I think Marguerite Duras once said something to that effect.) Therefore it’s possible for them to excel in any number of things and reap the rewards. But among those things, which is it that makes the person most satisfied? What gives him the greatest feelings of self-satisfaction? What is that thing that stirs his soul, makes him feel most alive? As humans, the ability to ask ourselves these questions is our divine right... to freedom. Tiger never had the chance to ask himself these questions: we cannot be satisfied if we are not free.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Path Not Taken
We make concessions for a variety of reasons: when we don’t want to disappoint someone, when we don’t want to be seen as selfish, when we want to be ‘dutiful’, and sometimes, when we’ve given up on changing the world in either the grandest or slightest ways. It is when we’ve decided that it’s not worth it or too difficult to be contrary to the workings of the world.
I learned how easy it is to lie to yourself. How easy it is to tell yourself that “it’s worth it for the money.”
I was recently hired for a job, an opportunity I fell into unexpectedly. Lately, I had been scanning Craig’s List for some kind of light part-time work to take advantage of the holiday seasonal hiring blitz. There was a listing for a seasonal position in the menswear department of a national high-end department store. I clicked on the link to the online application and sent it in. Within the hour I received an email requesting that I schedule a phone interview with them… by clicking their link. I did so. Within an hour of the phone interview I was sent an email requesting an in-person interview to be scheduled by clicking on the attached link. The interview seemed to go better than even the interviewer had expected, because the next I knew I was being offered a full-time position selling their designer collections. It was a more prestigious position as far as retail goes, with a respectable salary and commission rate.
I guess I was flattered by the offer and agreed to meet the department manager, who was responsible for the ultimate decision. I met with her the next day. It went well and she scheduled for me an interview with the store manager the following day. I was impressed with the level of humanity in the questions, something that I hadn’t experienced in previous retail job interviews – “Would you consider yourself lucky?” My answer, by the way, was, “Yes, I do! I’m married to the love of my life and together we have a modest, yet full life, making the most of every moment.”
Upon returning home from the interview with the store manager, I found a voicemail on the phone from the department manager. I called her back and found her ‘excited’ to offer me a position on her team. I accepted. Wow, my highest paying job to date and the first job I’ve ever had that provided full BENEFITS. Benefits – it’s what everyone wants isn’t it? I was feeling pretty good about myself because of those benefits. I never really cared about them before. Somehow (by the grace of God perhaps) I had gotten by without them. But it’s a golden ring in this world and I finally have a grasp on it.
I was scheduled for 3 full days of training the following week. I was impressed by the professionalism, the enthusiasm, and the warmth of the company and everyone who represented it. This was a tight ship. I was proud to become a part of it. I felt honoured that they chose to include me in it. In a well-produced training video I watched in my class of new hires, someone said that the long-standing success of the company has been due to “the quality of people” they hire. Quality? That’s me!
Of course, in the back of my mind I knew I was being flattered and sold a pitch which I in turn was to sell to my customers. But, man, it was effective. There were moments when I felt that I, like many of the employees I had met, could give my life to this company. After all, they did seem happy and well-adjusted here. This must be the most humane retail corporation in America! They don’t employ sweatshops in third world countries, they use recyclable paper and plastic products in their cafes, and they offer benefits to their employees. Oh, yeah, and if they like me, then it's definitely a good company.
Then, during this first day of training, the store manager, by whom I’d previously been interviewed, addresses the class. She’s a very warm, unpretentious, intelligent woman. In her inspiring speech about her long, storied history with the company, how she came to “fall in love” with it, and how it has brought her to this place of success and satisfaction of her intellect and creativity, she mentioned how she had started out on a different path. She was a PR and political science major in college with aspirations to “change the world,” as she put it. She wanted to work with political parties, election campaigns and write speeches, until she discovered that this world that she wanted to change wasn’t a particularly amenable to the changes she wanted to make. She mentioned the dishonesty of politics, for example, and said, “I’m too happy” to be a part of it. So she gave up her dream of changing the world and found her way to this retailer who made her the success she is today.
I was pumped. I too could be a success at this!
On to day two of training:
I’m an attentive student. Teachers have always loved me for the way I was unwavering in my attentiveness. They have an unfailing audience in me. And I'm sure I was selling them on what a star employee I was eventually going to be. We were learning the cash registers – exciting stuff for 6 hours. After the class, each of the new hires were to go to our respective departments and ‘shadow’ one of the other salespeople.
I could go on here about how unimpressed I was with the work ethic of one of the salespeople in the department. The Teacher’s Pet/Company Man in me would have said, “This is an outrage. She’s not following the steps of selling!” I’ve done so much retail – stemming 16 years, I recently counted – that I know the drill. I know what works. But now, in retrospect, I wonder if she was just being a bit more self-honest than most of the people in that store. She was there for her paycheque, using the company as much as she felt she was being used by it. I guess she figured that if they like it, they'll buy it. She wasn't going to push. “She should give up her job to someone who would appreciate it,” we might say. “Jobs aren’t easy to come by and shouldn’t be taken for granted.”
I’m not sure I have a blanket contradiction for that. I just knew that it wasn’t for me either.
On that shift I also observed the top seller of the department. I liked him. He smiles with ease and looks you in the eye when you speak. I could see why this company hired him and why he’s so successful. He seems very genuine. And maybe he is. I can’t say.
One of his biggest customers came in. She comes in about once I week, he told me. Drops money like it's going out of style (and God forbid if she was ever caught out-of-style). Loves to talk to whoever will listen. She was clearly very attached to the salesperson – “He’s mine,” she told me. (After she left, he told me, "Aw... they cling to anyone.") He brought out an Armani coat she had purchased. She tried it on and we ooh’d and aahh’d about how marvelous it made her look. She really wasn’t particularly attractive – all her money wasn’t really serving her in the way she thought. Her clothes were clearly expensive, but verging on tacky. Each item represented the latest in trends, and were even the most knocked out versions of them. (Paige Denim jeans with the elaborate embroidered design on both rear pockets? Unnecessary. An unnecessary design feature which added value. Possibly an extra hundred dollars to the ticket price.) She spoke of a Fendi bag she had found in her closet, tags still attached. She had forgotten about it and returned it to the store. “I wasn’t even excited when I found it.”
These lonely women would be coming to me too for retail therapy, a form of therapy that is indisputably ineffective. But the way we flatter them convinces them otherwise. So they keep coming back for our acknowledgement, dropping thousands of dollars on things they don’t need, just to hear us ooh and aahh for a few minutes.
I really want to help others. This does not help. I think it causes more harm than good. It is lying to them. If I think it’s okay – after all, I’m giving them what they want - then I’m lying to myself as well.
The job also would have taken me over an hour to get to and over an hour to come back from, leaving me with only three barely-waking hours before I start the sleep-work cycle over again. The job is supposed to enhance my quality of life. If it fails to do that then it defeats the purpose and not worth the time. Besides, I live in the city for a couple of big reasons: to keep my carbon footprint low and to be close to the things of the city I enjoy.
In the end, it was the store manager’s speech which resonated with me, but in ways contrary to what she intended. It struck me that this job, this department store, is where those who have given up on ‘changing the world’ go. I didn’t want to be one of them. I still believe I can change the world.
I learned how easy it is to lie to yourself. How easy it is to tell yourself that “it’s worth it for the money.”
I was recently hired for a job, an opportunity I fell into unexpectedly. Lately, I had been scanning Craig’s List for some kind of light part-time work to take advantage of the holiday seasonal hiring blitz. There was a listing for a seasonal position in the menswear department of a national high-end department store. I clicked on the link to the online application and sent it in. Within the hour I received an email requesting that I schedule a phone interview with them… by clicking their link. I did so. Within an hour of the phone interview I was sent an email requesting an in-person interview to be scheduled by clicking on the attached link. The interview seemed to go better than even the interviewer had expected, because the next I knew I was being offered a full-time position selling their designer collections. It was a more prestigious position as far as retail goes, with a respectable salary and commission rate.
I guess I was flattered by the offer and agreed to meet the department manager, who was responsible for the ultimate decision. I met with her the next day. It went well and she scheduled for me an interview with the store manager the following day. I was impressed with the level of humanity in the questions, something that I hadn’t experienced in previous retail job interviews – “Would you consider yourself lucky?” My answer, by the way, was, “Yes, I do! I’m married to the love of my life and together we have a modest, yet full life, making the most of every moment.”
Upon returning home from the interview with the store manager, I found a voicemail on the phone from the department manager. I called her back and found her ‘excited’ to offer me a position on her team. I accepted. Wow, my highest paying job to date and the first job I’ve ever had that provided full BENEFITS. Benefits – it’s what everyone wants isn’t it? I was feeling pretty good about myself because of those benefits. I never really cared about them before. Somehow (by the grace of God perhaps) I had gotten by without them. But it’s a golden ring in this world and I finally have a grasp on it.
I was scheduled for 3 full days of training the following week. I was impressed by the professionalism, the enthusiasm, and the warmth of the company and everyone who represented it. This was a tight ship. I was proud to become a part of it. I felt honoured that they chose to include me in it. In a well-produced training video I watched in my class of new hires, someone said that the long-standing success of the company has been due to “the quality of people” they hire. Quality? That’s me!
Of course, in the back of my mind I knew I was being flattered and sold a pitch which I in turn was to sell to my customers. But, man, it was effective. There were moments when I felt that I, like many of the employees I had met, could give my life to this company. After all, they did seem happy and well-adjusted here. This must be the most humane retail corporation in America! They don’t employ sweatshops in third world countries, they use recyclable paper and plastic products in their cafes, and they offer benefits to their employees. Oh, yeah, and if they like me, then it's definitely a good company.
Then, during this first day of training, the store manager, by whom I’d previously been interviewed, addresses the class. She’s a very warm, unpretentious, intelligent woman. In her inspiring speech about her long, storied history with the company, how she came to “fall in love” with it, and how it has brought her to this place of success and satisfaction of her intellect and creativity, she mentioned how she had started out on a different path. She was a PR and political science major in college with aspirations to “change the world,” as she put it. She wanted to work with political parties, election campaigns and write speeches, until she discovered that this world that she wanted to change wasn’t a particularly amenable to the changes she wanted to make. She mentioned the dishonesty of politics, for example, and said, “I’m too happy” to be a part of it. So she gave up her dream of changing the world and found her way to this retailer who made her the success she is today.
I was pumped. I too could be a success at this!
On to day two of training:
I’m an attentive student. Teachers have always loved me for the way I was unwavering in my attentiveness. They have an unfailing audience in me. And I'm sure I was selling them on what a star employee I was eventually going to be. We were learning the cash registers – exciting stuff for 6 hours. After the class, each of the new hires were to go to our respective departments and ‘shadow’ one of the other salespeople.
I could go on here about how unimpressed I was with the work ethic of one of the salespeople in the department. The Teacher’s Pet/Company Man in me would have said, “This is an outrage. She’s not following the steps of selling!” I’ve done so much retail – stemming 16 years, I recently counted – that I know the drill. I know what works. But now, in retrospect, I wonder if she was just being a bit more self-honest than most of the people in that store. She was there for her paycheque, using the company as much as she felt she was being used by it. I guess she figured that if they like it, they'll buy it. She wasn't going to push. “She should give up her job to someone who would appreciate it,” we might say. “Jobs aren’t easy to come by and shouldn’t be taken for granted.”
I’m not sure I have a blanket contradiction for that. I just knew that it wasn’t for me either.
On that shift I also observed the top seller of the department. I liked him. He smiles with ease and looks you in the eye when you speak. I could see why this company hired him and why he’s so successful. He seems very genuine. And maybe he is. I can’t say.
One of his biggest customers came in. She comes in about once I week, he told me. Drops money like it's going out of style (and God forbid if she was ever caught out-of-style). Loves to talk to whoever will listen. She was clearly very attached to the salesperson – “He’s mine,” she told me. (After she left, he told me, "Aw... they cling to anyone.") He brought out an Armani coat she had purchased. She tried it on and we ooh’d and aahh’d about how marvelous it made her look. She really wasn’t particularly attractive – all her money wasn’t really serving her in the way she thought. Her clothes were clearly expensive, but verging on tacky. Each item represented the latest in trends, and were even the most knocked out versions of them. (Paige Denim jeans with the elaborate embroidered design on both rear pockets? Unnecessary. An unnecessary design feature which added value. Possibly an extra hundred dollars to the ticket price.) She spoke of a Fendi bag she had found in her closet, tags still attached. She had forgotten about it and returned it to the store. “I wasn’t even excited when I found it.”
These lonely women would be coming to me too for retail therapy, a form of therapy that is indisputably ineffective. But the way we flatter them convinces them otherwise. So they keep coming back for our acknowledgement, dropping thousands of dollars on things they don’t need, just to hear us ooh and aahh for a few minutes.
I really want to help others. This does not help. I think it causes more harm than good. It is lying to them. If I think it’s okay – after all, I’m giving them what they want - then I’m lying to myself as well.
The job also would have taken me over an hour to get to and over an hour to come back from, leaving me with only three barely-waking hours before I start the sleep-work cycle over again. The job is supposed to enhance my quality of life. If it fails to do that then it defeats the purpose and not worth the time. Besides, I live in the city for a couple of big reasons: to keep my carbon footprint low and to be close to the things of the city I enjoy.
In the end, it was the store manager’s speech which resonated with me, but in ways contrary to what she intended. It struck me that this job, this department store, is where those who have given up on ‘changing the world’ go. I didn’t want to be one of them. I still believe I can change the world.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
"All the world's a stage" and Agency... a Paradox?
Seeking the approval of the other is not to be confused with love of the other or the selflessness of satisfying the other. To love another you simply just have to love the other. It shouldn’t matter whether this person reciprocates the love. To seek the approval of this person is therefore the effort to satisfy one’s own ego.
When we appropriate the interests, the values, and the actions of the other, we divest ourselves of our own unique selfhood. In doing this we surrender our own agency as a uniquely thinking, feeling, and doing individual and assume those of someone else. We do this with the expectation of earning the approval of the person(s) from whom we’ve derived our sense of self: the other’s identity becomes our identity. In our sloth, our intellectual laziness, we see this as a sure and easy way to be accepted, acknowledged, liked, loved, etc. It is most definitely an easier way than loving, which is an investment that entails risk, effort, sacrifice, generosity, and possibly pain.
Therefore, seeking the approval of this other is not an act of love or even admiration. It is an act of aggression. It is aggressive because a) as explained above, there is no love involved in this modus operandi, b) you are presenting and inauthentic self to this other person, and c) when this mode fails to bring you ultimate satisfaction, you will have someone to blame for it. By surrendering your agency, you surrender responsibility for yourself and the other person.
The irony is that if this mode successfully yields satisfaction for you, you will not responsible for it. It will be a success in spite of you. However, if this mode fails to yield satisfaction to all parties involved, it will be because of you. You will be responsible for the failure. This is because each of us has our own particular role to play in this life. This is what Shakespeare has meant by his “all the world’s a stage” aphorism. We each have a part to play in humanity shared endeavour to make this world a better place, to make paradise possible for us all.
When we appropriate the interests, the values, and the actions of the other, we divest ourselves of our own unique selfhood. In doing this we surrender our own agency as a uniquely thinking, feeling, and doing individual and assume those of someone else. We do this with the expectation of earning the approval of the person(s) from whom we’ve derived our sense of self: the other’s identity becomes our identity. In our sloth, our intellectual laziness, we see this as a sure and easy way to be accepted, acknowledged, liked, loved, etc. It is most definitely an easier way than loving, which is an investment that entails risk, effort, sacrifice, generosity, and possibly pain.
Therefore, seeking the approval of this other is not an act of love or even admiration. It is an act of aggression. It is aggressive because a) as explained above, there is no love involved in this modus operandi, b) you are presenting and inauthentic self to this other person, and c) when this mode fails to bring you ultimate satisfaction, you will have someone to blame for it. By surrendering your agency, you surrender responsibility for yourself and the other person.
The irony is that if this mode successfully yields satisfaction for you, you will not responsible for it. It will be a success in spite of you. However, if this mode fails to yield satisfaction to all parties involved, it will be because of you. You will be responsible for the failure. This is because each of us has our own particular role to play in this life. This is what Shakespeare has meant by his “all the world’s a stage” aphorism. We each have a part to play in humanity shared endeavour to make this world a better place, to make paradise possible for us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
