Photo by Gisela Giardino
In interviews with people who have just done something great, you will often hear them say something like “and I’d like to thank my parents who always told me I could be anything I wanted to be…” I think to myself: That’s sweet, but your parents lied to you.
You can’t be anything you want to be. Consider those pathetic American Idol contestants, typically showcased in a season’s early episodes, who are interviewed by the host after howling tunelessly and being dismissed by the judges. Often in tears, many of them genuinely can’t sort out what has happened, and say something along the lines of “They don’t understand, this is my dream.”
Great TV—what could be better than watching people humiliate themselves in front of millions of viewers, right? But what interests me is that it seems these folks believe it’s the strength of their dream rather than ability to sing that should determine their success. But then I guess it’s no surprise they might think this, because in our society we are repeatedly told that we should pursue our dreams and let nothing stand in the way. Again, that’s patently untrue—even if it’s their dream, tone deaf people can’t be popular singers—and you have to wonder why something so false is so often repeated.
It’s repeated because it’s fundamental to our economy, our whole way of life. I’ve asked hundreds of people about this over the years and I’ve learned that most of us dream of transformation; although we may acknowledge that our lives are fine right now, we also carry around an underlying fantasy that things could be much better if only…I could finish my novel, get a date with Mary, win the lottery, you name it. Such dreams keep us going, they give hope, even to those who have little to be hopeful about.
So, what’s wrong with that? Well, two things. For those whose lives are fine right now, dreams of transformation create a restless dissatisfaction instead of appreciation of the here and now. And for those whose lives aren’t fine right now, what’s needed is not dreams, but realistic plans.
The advice we should give people is not “follow your dreams” but rather “follow your aptitude.” This would seem to be a simple thing, why don’t we do it? We don’t do it because we need to preserve the fantasy that is the basis of most of our stories, movies, and self-help books: “No matter how bleak things seem, what you dream about is ahead, just around the corner. Go to the movies, buy this book, join our church and you are guaranteed a place in heaven.”
This fantasy must be preserved at all costs, for if too many people started to suspect that their road to the top is effectively blocked, they might begin to question the entire economic system. Instead of going to the movies or buying the promises, they might instead organize political groups to address, for example, the spectacular income inequalities in our society. And we can’t have that, can we?
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
A comment from the author: When this post first appeared at Psychology Today, it generated quite a bit of lively discussion–check it out.
Spot on. I have a working thesis about this, that personal development and self-help exists in part to distract citizens from an unfair economic structure.
Oh, and since other people are already making the connection on Twitter, I’d like to connect you with a blog post I just put up today with a similar view but different tone: http://beyondgrowth.net/personal-development/good-news-you-cant-have-it-all/
Peter, you are onto something very important here. “You can be anything you want to be” is a patent falsehood. Yet I feel it’s also inaccurate to equate all dreams of transformation with “restless dissatisfaction” or unrealistic dreams that distract from realistic plans.
Transformation is a notion that gets tossed around far too casually these days. The popular notion of instantaneous transformation from a lower to a higher, more satisfying, more gratifying state is nonsense. But real transformation, the shift from one enduring way of making meaning to another or from one way of living to another, usually as the result of long term practices ranging from meditation to martial arts to playing the piano, is not only valid, but also an essential aspect of what it is to be a conscious human being.
Let’s not relegate dreams to the bedroom. Instead, let’s bring practice back into the conversations about paradigm shifts, laws of attraction, transformation, and other New Age fantasias. It’s a mistake to throw out an entire domain simply because the popular discourse distorts and denatures it.
Molly,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment; it prods me to clarify some of my own thinking on this matter. I tend to assume that the whole idea of “self-transformation” is a cultural artifact in contemporary American culture, the product of earlier religious ideas about conversion interacting with entertainment culture. But at the same time I also believe, based on all sorts of evidence, that people can change in significant ways through psychotherapy, religious practices, and other disciplines. So, in one sense I think that the idea of “self-transformation” makes little sense from an empirical perspective, while in another sense I agree with your point that people really can transform important parts of their outlook, behavior, etc.
In part, this is just a matter of definition—where is the boundary between “change” and “transformation.” ? But I also think that you are correct to identify transformation with a shift in “making meaning.” Here my training as an anthropologist requires me to observe that it is only in certain sorts of situations that you can have these shifts. In Western society, after the Reformation, the existence of competing meaning systems (such as religions) began to be taken for granted. For that reason it is easy for us to forget that people who live in situations in which there is only one available cultural system don’t really have the option of shifting to another meaning system. Thus I’m inclined to the view that “self-transformation” is a cultural practice rather than a human universal.
That’s not necessarily the last word on this, it’s just a formulation of where I stand at the moment on the important issue that you raise.
Thank you for this article, it hit home for me. Living in balance seems to me to be the best. I’d also add that it is helpful to consider what one’s nervous system can handle in addition to aptitude. Some of us just didn’t receive loving and clear feedback when we were young, Parker Palmer discusses this in his book, “Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation”. What can confuse the issue it seems is that some feel so called by the heart, and yet aren’t quite sorting things out. I have two sons, one looking at colleges. He is often told he could go anywhere! But the options are actually very few when it gets right down to: grades, test scores, his ability and our ability to pay, willingness to debt, etc… The high schools are not talking to kids about this. The college recruiters are not talking about this. They just direct you to the financial aid office and give you a pen to sign up for a loan. But, wait a minute–that’s what my kid is saying. What really fits here!
Thanks for your comment, Constance. The bad news is that when your son gets to college he’ll be asked at some point to choose a major, and chances are no one will sit down with him and talk about how well his talents suit him for the major or about job possibilities once he graduates. I can’t count the number of graduating college seniors I’ve spoken with who have no plan whatsoever about what comes next. In my post, I’ve discussed how this is related to entertainment culture, but that’s not the only factor here. Frankly, I think many universities and college professors think vocational advice is beneath them. The good news: if one is aware of this problem, there are in fact plenty of sensible people out there, in universities and elsewhere, who can actually help with this. You just have to make sure and locate them.
Yes, I agree with your response– for most kids, true. Fortunately he’s already thought about this quite a bit (he’s a sophomore now) and after his research, is now planning to use the fast track program to become an English teacher. He’s great about accepting feedback and reviewing options. I want him to be happy and matched up with what works for him. And, he doesn’t see being an English teacher as the be-all and end-all, but as an ice flow until it appears clear to jump to something else- within reason. He can always write screenplays during his summers off. We do change somewhat over time as well.
In a hierarchical society–early 19th century Japan, for example–it is thought honorable to stay within one’s station (to practice one’s occupation) and dishonorable to strive to exceed one’s social position. I have no nostalgia whatsoever for hierarchy–give me equality any day–but at the same time I sometimes wish we could have the best of both worlds. That is, I wish we could honor any person who performs a job with dignity and diligence, without thinking that it is only by doing something extraordinary that a person proves her or his worth. I suspect you’d probably agree with me here.
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, I do agree. The honor is in the doing, and the being.
Yes, it is unfortunate that we tell all children they can grow up to be anything they would like. Obviously this is untrue. Everyone has certain circumstances that prevent them from pursuing certain career paths. As much as a child might want to be an astronaut that’s not going to happen if the child does not have the physical capacity.
What is so frustrating about telling students they can be anything they would like is that they may miss out on wonderful opportunities to be successful in their own way. Not every student needs to go to college and, for many, vocational training could be a much better path to success.
And yet so often teachers assume that everyone should go to college and encourage students to go that route regardless of aptitude. This is rooted in the idea that a college education somehow leads to a life that is better or people that are better. Educators are often those who have bought in to this myth the most, that’s why they become educators, to “make a difference.”
Hi Ashley,
Well said. Your point that educators often perpetuate this is insightful. It’s like college professors encouraging their students to attend graduate school–”I did it, so it’s clearly the thing to do!” But often it isn’t the thing to do. Graduate school, or college, are wonderful opportunities for those who want and need them. But educators shouldn’t assume that because they went to college, no one else can live a complete life without doing so.
Peter – agreed; the “Dreams” / transformations of the type your post seems to refer to are more specifically those of occupational achievement/gaining riches. The ‘you can achieve anything’ ethos does seem to be tied at least partially to the American Idea- own bootstraps, anyone could be a millionaire, etc. Yes, more shattered dreams –though almost a necessary by-product to an environment that does facilitate (if to a different degree in actuality than traditionally percieved) a stronger opportunity for that sort of event. (Nassim Taleb’s “Black Swans.”). The churning spent to fully juice The American Promise no doubt is the cause for many an ulcer.
(Noted: first-generation immigrants to the US often seem to have a different definition of how this Promise is fulfilled: to them, often a place to raise a family in safely and pursue a successful living of any form is fulfillment of it).
The irony of using American Idol as the example is that modern voice & recording studio technology can erase the majority of glaring issues with a recorded voice — multimillion-dollar stars can (tragically?) be both tone-deaf and successful.
Lots of interesting thoughts here. For example, I take you to mean that the more egregious versions of the “you can be anything” myth may be the price we pay for a society in which great achievements are in fact possible. We need the really capable folks to come through, thus we construct a system where that can happen, but the vast majority is left in a sort of tragic position, because the mythology suggests that their modest accomplishments are somehow insufficient.
My own experience also suggests that you’re onto something re: immigrants, although I might add second generation immigrants in there. But again, there is a potential book in the observation. Why is a working family and honorable work no longer enough for some? Or maybe it is, and we just don’t hear about it because of the character of media coverage.
Finally, you mean that Lady Gaga can’t really sing? I’m shattered.
Haha…i’m sorry to have dashed Gaga-impressions held dear…
Yes, that is what i am saying- the degree that the Self-Made Man can be self-made in the US also causes all the more turmoil for those who crave being self-sufficient/successful and aren’t. “If I’m in the place where i can pull myself up by my own bootstraps (and I’m not), is it a failure on my part? Or is the promise of this place a lie?”
Rags-to-riches is basically the American Tale – with some good reason. (On other hand from the “poor them” take above), when the perception of how this is achieved changes from earning it to being swept up in it/major success being easily grasped, i think the amount of gnashing of teeth grows. As you imply in your post, superstardom requires a remarkable confluence of reasons, many simply happenstance and fortuitous, not the least of which includes (generally
) legitimate musical and vocal skill.
Also ties to the immigrant observation – their perception of what The Dream is, and how it’s had. (Likely a perception seasoned by knowing that a simple dream isn’t necessarily achievable: raising a family and pursuing employment in a steady, safe(r) environment). It’s a more realistic (and sensible) perception.
There’s an almost willing-deafness in the contestants leaving the American Idol judging upset- their “dreams” are “shattered” but it was being turned down that is to blame – not the brazen, non-parental statements of the Judges letting them know that “no, you do not have a good voice.” In this way, the nonsensical idea that you can achieve ANYTHING! you put your mind to, the deception is shared by the parents and pumped-up child. (Or, perhaps, the critiques don’t even show up on their radar, being simply more attuned to a Yes/No set-up instead of seeing themselves on a spectrum that they should be seeking to improve upwards.)