When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

What takes off?
What takes off?
Darío Sztajnszrajber

-Essay-

BUENOS AIRES — Choosing a career path is one of the most important decisions a person can make. But how much choice does one really have? How much say in the matter is an individual really afforded? What kind of advice can we give our children and grandchildren?

Life alternates between doing what we want to do and bowing to collective pressure to do what we should do. It is what the philosopher Michel Foucault termed the subjected subject: one who believes her actions are autonomous, who can't imagine she's actually conforming to laws created by others; a person whose personal interest consists of other people's interests.

If the subject is subjected, then the problem becomes twofold: subjection and normalization. And to that end, one of the most functional tools is perhaps the ability to mark limits between the normal and abnormal. Would anyone urge their children to take an "abnormal" path in life? Would certain vocational choices throw us into such a world of abnormality? Which are the normal, or abnormal career choices? Perhaps the most abnormal thing is not making a choice at all. The social norm, after all, is to choose between myriad options offered by the marketplace of careers.

First anomaly: A person cannot not study.

For the most part, "studying" is taken to mean higher education — something one does at a specific time and place and commits to (more or less exclusively), until eventually earning a formal qualification or degree. But is that the only way a person can study?

Studying is not easily defined. Does it have to do with our existential, inherent and human search for meaning? Or does it require fitting into one of the roles the established order sets out, a place in the framework of professional development intended to make society function?

The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, for one, compares studying to a blow that leaves us stunned. He sees it as an endless exercise that removes us from ourselves. This is a big question, one as problematic as the convoluted concepts of love and marriage; justice and legality; religion and spirituality. We can even tie it to another, almost traditional dispute: vocation vs. profession. Do institutions represent us? Or restrict us?

The only clear thing is that there is no clear answer. One cannot not study, but the desire for meaning exceeds the options available.

Second anomaly: There is little margin for error.

[rebelmouse-image 27090136 alt="""" original_size="1023x682" expand=1]

Check the boxes — Photo: College of DuPage

People's identities are often tied to their choice of study and career. But that often means defining one's future while still in high school. I am what I studied!

Social pressures weigh heavily: Someone who does not know what to study is immediately shunted toward vocational training options. The apparent implication is a "crisis" of identity. As if identity were not already in a permanent state of crisis! The link between personal identity and career path is questionable at best.

Nietzsche believed that the I is a battleground of different fragments in conflict; and I would only add no single fragment should prevail as the only perspective on one's life.

Third anomaly: There isn't really much of a distinction between vocation and profession, after all.

And thank God, because otherwise we would live in a state of cultural schizophrenia. Imagine if everyone had it clear in their mind that what they really should be doing is one thing while instead they're stuck doing another. In reality, people can do various things at once. The most conservative outlook would maintain that existing professions constitute all vocations. The most revolutionary perspective is that come the revolution, every vocation will find its way to becoming a profession.

In the meantime, we can propose this to our children: Do what you want, for the only abnormality is to do something you do not believe in.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

When Did Putin "Turn" Evil? That's Exactly The Wrong Question

Look back over the past two decades, and you'll see Vladimir Putin has always been the man revealed by the Ukraine invasion, an evil and sinister dictator. The Russian leader just managed to mask it, especially because so many chose to see him as a typically corrupt and greedy strongman who could be bribed or reasoned with.

Putin arrives for a ceremony to accept credentials from 24 foreign ambassadors at the Grand Kremlin Palace on Sept. 20.

Sergiy Gromenko*

-OpEd-

KYIV — The world knows that Vladimir Putin has power, money and mistresses. So why, ask some, wasn't that enough for him? Why did he have to go start another war?

At its heart, this is the wrong question to ask. For Putin, military expansion is not an adrenaline rush to feed into his existing life of luxury. On the contrary, the shedding of blood for the sake of holding power is his modus operandi, while the fruits of greed and corruption like the Putin Palace in Gelendzhik are more like a welcome bonus.

In the last year, we have kept hearing rhetorical questions like “why did Putin start this war at all, didn't he have enough of his own land?” or “he already has Gelendzhik to enjoy, why fight?” This line of thinking has resurfaced after missile strikes on Ukrainian power grids and dams, which was regarded by many as a simple demonstration of terrorism. Such acts are a manifestation of weakness, some ask, so is Putin ready to show himself weak?

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

However, you will not arrive at the correct answer if the questions themselves are asked incorrectly. For decades, analysts in Russia, Ukraine, and the West have been under an illusion about the nature of the Russian president's personal dictatorship.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ